The word "rock" isn't even on the page. I just browsed through it all, and there's nothing that refers to anything rock-like.

All I could find at the moment was a comment from Defiant1 from 28 May last year, in which he says that "I own a page of original art from one of the issues with a guest artist" (i.e. not Manapul. I haven't done any research to figure out whom). "He took pride in saying that he ignored your request to not have overlapping panels. He was smiling when he said it and he also complained about how thick the script was. (…) My understanding is that the page of art I own had to be tweaked to make it obvious that the power ring was lifting a rock and not the character."

Anonymous

US mainstream comics I think are dying a painful slow death. Deservedly so.

Shooter's reign was what saved Marvel. Made it a sort of professional outfit. Saved it both in the US and abroad. Many abroad recognize the great quality that is synonymous whith the Shooter period.

Re: Secret Wars. I enjoyed the first series. Expected the sequel (SW II) to have better art. Not sure why Golden could not have drawn it, on the one hand. On the other hand the story was probably too ambitious. I'd like to reread it and see how it holds up. Probably what Mr. Shooter attempted with Secret Wars II, as far as being that kind of an overarching story, was something he actually was able to pull off with Unity.

Re: Manapul. Saw his art in the Legion. Not overly impressed. I'm sure he has some qualities. Remember him in a History channel show drawing a neat dragon for some fantasy-themed episode. "Cool", I thought "a comic artist on tv".

Re: the topic of artists following writer's intent. A famous and prestigiuous European publishing entity has its artists closely follow the writers' stories. A writer, in particular, wants every single tiny element of his scripts to be followed to the letter. An artist does what is told of him or her. So it surprises me to see some artists in the US think they can do their own interpretation of someone else's script.

To Jim and Jay Jay: great blog. Have enjoyed it for more than a year. And I hope we can get many more posts from BOTH of you. Would love to hear more anecdotes of your working at Marvel or at other places, of your artistic inspirations and whatever else crosses your mind. Thank you.

–Jim explains why he requests a 6 panel grid. With new artists, it's so they learn the storytelling basics. The story is the main purpose of a comic. Once an artist shows that he understands story flow elements, Jim has pretty much stated he's happy with anything that works–

It's patronising as hell. Thats bullying. I'd love to see Shooter work with someone like Frazer Irving (does he even know who Frazer Irving is), and demand a six panel grid.

–I want Manapul to either follow the script —

Jesus Christ man, he drew a rock differently. Get over it.

–I want inept people to either learn how to produce acceptable work or go find another occupation–

Please give examples of the "inept" work Greg Rucka and Edwin Brubaker are producing

–I want him to draw consistently in quality and quit making every character have the same "really cool" bullshit Manga (quick to draw & lazy) haircut

And if he slaved over every panel like a retard, you'd be attacking him for missing deadlines.

–I was told by a very skilled and competent artist from the 90's that he can't get work because if the publishers like his work,–

Name him. Has he pitched work to Image? Or is he just another bitter hack who's pissed he never figured out how to move with the times?

–I expect the powers in charge are too incompetent to realize why Jim's editorial direction BUILDS readership as opposed to driving them off–

Jim Shooter is not an editor anymore. And if he's solely capable of building readership, well, sorry buddy, Turok failed.

But, of course, you ignored my question. You just wanted to attack Dan DiDio. Thats you and Shooter in a nutshell. Don't like a creator? Bully and attack him. Don't like the industry? Blame the industry, not Shooter for driving away talent, and alienating creators who don't want to work for him. Comics are doing fine without Shooter. I'd rather have a smaller, more loyal group of customers that come in and WANT comics, than every idiot kid who comes in wants the latest videogame bullshit.

And by the way, there's a very noticable anti-Manga note in your post. While I assume you're against anything Jim Shooter can't be credited for creating (or claims he created), most of us who work in comic book stores are happy that there's something that gets kids in the door (especially girls)

Anonymous

Confession:I laugh to myself when I see the first X-Men movie. There is a character in the movie which is named after one of Jim's relatives. As far as I know, Jim had nothing to do with the movie. Despite that, his ideas still sifted up to the final product, not out.

It has nothing to do with wanting creators to fail. They ARE failing. If a brick layer lays bricks crooked, with poor mortar, and they fall over or fail to accomplish their purpose, then they don't need to be laying bricks. If a bottling company doesn't sterilize or seal their bottle properly and you swallow a clump of mold when you drink their product, then they don't need to be in the business of bottling drinks. I want inept people to either learn how to produce acceptable work or go find another occupation. I'm not into giving creators handouts, setting down comics in disgust, and rolling my eyes. I want Manapul to either follow the script or go find an occupation where he can perform a task properly. I want him to draw consistently in quality and quit making every character have the same "really cool" bullshit Manga (quick to draw & lazy) haircut that isn't found in society.

You said:"Why are you against creativity? You dont like Manapaul, Greg Land, Frazer Irving, Mike Mignola. Much like Shooter, you're stuck on this belief that comics can only be on a six panel grid."

I am fully behind creativity. I was told by a very skilled and competent artist from the 90's that he can't get work because if the publishers like his work, they go find some young kid that draws just like him at half the rate. Lack of creativity dominates the industry. If Manga is selling, they look for artists that have a Manga influence. It Jim Lee's art is selling, they go find artists that draw in the style of Jim Lee. You can't say I'm stuck on a 6 panel grid, because I own almost a complete set of comics from Continuity. Some of the stories leave a lot to be desired, so it's a safe bet I liked the art. My problem is that comics don't respect my time. They don't accomplish their goal or function. They rely on shock factor as a substitute for an intelligently written story. They aren't of consistent quality. Characters don't look the same from issue to issue. They are just distracting and obnoxious and not the least bit conducive to telling a story. Jim explains why he requests a 6 panel grid. With new artists, it's so they learn the storytelling basics. The story is the main purpose of a comic. Once an artist shows that he understands story flow elements, Jim has pretty much stated he's happy with anything that works. I agree with that.

You said:"3. Do you really think Shooter has a place in todays market? Do you think Snyder and Capullo (just as an example), are going to leave Batman and Dan Diio is going to pick up the phone and call Shooter and say 'Hey, we've had this ground breaking, top selling run come to an end, why don't you try and top that, bring Al Milgrom along too?' "

I think Didio is an asshole and an idiot. I expect the powers in charge are too incompetent to realize why Jim's editorial direction BUILDS readership as opposed to driving them off. I believe too many men in charge are too cowardly to hire Jim and let him build something slowly from an editorial stance.

This industry has been writhing in it's own shit so long, I don't think too many people left even remember what it's like to be free of the stench. My proposals (and Jim's storytelling method (which has built in marketing) is not going to appeal to readers that are happy with inadequate product.

Jim tends to write grand scale epics that build over time to something much greater. No one in the industry has the balls to let the seed sprout and wait for the leaves to poke out of the ground. There is a time delay Between Jim preparing the conditions for success and the culmination of success.

Yes, I'm vehement. I'm vehement that the industry sabotages every possibility for lasting quality and success.

Arthur Nichols

I've donated a total of $95.00 to this blog, and I think that was money well spent. I'm okay with Shooter taking a break.

It's certainly quite the annoyance to have 'Anonymous' and Dave James O'Neill here being the obnoxious hateful people they are. But there is comfort knowing that the louder and more vociferous they become, the more they go to show that Jim Shooter is by comparison, the more reasoned person.

Oh, thanks a lot! It's reassuring to see that it's someone who knows me sooo well who finally let the secret out.

I'm not in a situation to have anythong to gain from kissing Jim Shooter's ass. Nor does Jim Shooter need me in any way. I'm not even in the same country. I'm not interested in trying to make myself look interesting either. I'm just interested in expressing my honest opinion about things. Mostly I just lurk, but occasionally there's something I'd like to express.

What do you want me to do? Make up things to criticise?

Oh, I can actually think of some criticism off the top of my head:

I've never thought "Secret Wars" was very exciting, and definiely not as exciting as the spin said both at the time and still does today. It's all right, but compared to "Crisis on Infinite Earths" it seems pretty pedestrian.

I've only browsed through "Secret Wars II", but that looks even less revolutionary. The biggest problem with "Secret Wars II", though, is that it's like the forefather of today's much hated "event" books with myriads of crossovers into heaps of titles that you need to buy to get the full story.

I loved Jim's writing and universe-building on Valiant, though, and thought the Shooter-less Valiant only managed to keep the quality at an acceptable level for a disappointly short time after firing him. In principle I disliked the universe-wide crossover that "Unity" was, but it was so enjoyable that I was willing to forgive it that one time. It helped that I was in fact buying all the books anyway. 🙂

Anyway – that, and several other things of his I have very much enjoyed over the years (including this blog) makes me a sycophant, I guess. I'd think "fan" would be more appropriate, but what the heck.

If there was real constructive criticism of Jim Shooter on this blog, I'm sure there's some I could/would agree with! But there's little of that, and a lot of vomit and trolling.

"I respect Jim a lot for what he has contributed, but i'm not a suck up either and i called him on his actions with respect to disrespecting a man who was laying in a coma and who ontributed so much to Marvel."

So when people are in a coma you shouldn't criticise things they did before they were in a coma?

Maybe Jim wants to kill his career?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but maybe we should also "not speak ill of the dead" nor "criticise people who aren't here to defend themselves" and see who's left?

"i still disagree with asking for donations to keep a blog alive and then not to long afterwards the blog becomes dead in the water"

Since the first time (I think) donations were mentioned in a blog post (October 10), we've had 81 posts:

Oct: 20 (incl. the October 10 post)Nov: 19Dec: 18Jan: 12Feb: 6Mar: 6

My own reasons for giving some small donations have been in appreciation for past posts, and as a small encouragement for future ones. I feel I've gotten good value for money. Your mileage may vary. Like I wrote in my non-appearing post, donating is completely voluntary and has hardly been mentioned by anyone except by people who complain about the mere concept. If I didn't know better, I'd think this was a closed, members/subscription only service.

I'll make no assumptions about whether you've donated or not. But for those who haven't, I fail to understand what there is to complain about.

Anonymous

Anonymous

Jay Jay,

Rather than deleting individual comments, I'd suggest the alternative of closing comments after a set period of time (say, one week). That way, no matter how vitriolic comments get, there is a predetermined shelf-life to the thread. Ehow describes how to close comments on Blogger. Also, no one can claim favorites–sycophants and trolls alike will be locked out. Regular folk, too, if such creatures exist.

The downside is that people who later find old posts can't comment, no matter how salient the thought. Seems like a small price to pay, however.

Here's a question. If Shooter is SO GOOD, and, if you listen to Defiant, giving Jim control of the industry will save comics for another generation, if he's that good, why hasn't he gone to Image with a book and self published? Why hasn't he found an artist who meets his ludicrous standards and pitched a book, that, if you listen to Image Head Honcho Fat Bob Kirkman, will make a billion dollars!

I respect Jim a lot for what he has contributed, but i'm not a suck up either and i called him on his actions with respect to disrespecting a man who was laying in a coma and who contributed so much to Marvel.

I like JayJay a lot she has always been kind to me on her and Facebook.

i still disagree with asking for donations to keep a blog alive and then not to long afterwards the blog becomes dead in the water i think that is extremely disrespectful towards the fans and the people who have contributed to this forum like JayJay who has worked so hard on this thing and now we aren't even given enough respect from Jim from him to say why exactly the site has been MIA for months and months and i would also like to know why the forums have gone so downhill with nothing but trolls versus suck ups.

Anonymous

And by the way… I've long been a fan of Jim Shooter, particularly for having a big share in making Marvel so great in the 80's and for the wonderful work on Valiant up until and including Unity. Still, I'm sure I could criticise Jim Shooter about something, and I'm sure I disagree with him about something. But all the shit (and mostly bullshit) he's taking just makes me sympathize with the man. It sure can't be easy.

1. I wholeheartedly agree with Arthur Nichols' request for a more active moderation of the comments section on this blog. Kicking out people who are unable to behave politely in public is quite a different thing from censoring anyone's opinions. I for one would be happy about an improved signal-to-noise ration here.

Oh, and by the way, Art, my sincere thanks for posting so much sense lately! God knows there's been enough nonsense.

2. I don't understand all the indignation about the donations/contributions. I myself have donated small amounts to this blog on a few occasions – and happily so! This blog has given me more entertainment and joy than most comic books do these days, and I think that's worth the price of a couple of comic books every now and then. I always knew where the money would go, because Jim said so. Here are some comments he's made regarding donations in his main posts:

10 October 2011: "You probably noticed the Contributions request in the sidebar. I was reluctant to ask you for money, but economic reality has a way of asserting itself. To those of you who have already generously donated to help us keep going, thank you. To all who participate in this wonderfully collaborative blog, thank you. Together, I think we’re building something really special here, a tapestry of views and opinions from different perspectives. To everyone who stops by, thank you. All of you make a difference."

21 October 2011: "To date, donations given to support this blog have totaled $989.00. Of that, a small amount has been put aside for basic blogging expenses that JayJay can explain and I can’t. The rest of the money has gone to buy food pellets for her and/or whatever Blog Elves require to survive. Because JayJay spends a lot of time and puts in a lot of effort to get this thing online and I haven’t been able to pay her since May.

At the point that any revenues we may get from ads is sufficient to cover expenses and keep the Blog Elf well-fed and sleek, I will stop asking for donations, and in fact, refuse them."

28 November 2011: "Speaking of Thanksgiving, I am very thankful for your kind donations, which have enabled JayJay the Blog Elf to devote the time it takes to do all the technical work on this thing. Being computer/Internet unskilled, I literally couldn’t do it without her."

To those who keep complaining: 1) How much have you donated? and 2) What's the damn problem anyway? It's completely voluntary to donate, it's completely up to you whether you want to donate or not! Who's going to stop you from reading the blog, or posting comments, even if you haven't donated? And who's making all the noise anyway? There's one small link titled "CONTRIBUTIONS" on the front page. Does that bother you that much? The last comment (that I could find) from Jim concerning donations is the one above from 28 November. All the rest of the noise has been made by the complainers. Give me a break!

3. Jim absence: I would be very happy if Jim continued to post every day. I hope the reason for his absence is that he's got work that actually puts food on his table. I'm sure the reasons for his absence are good ones. Whatever the reason, I'll be waiting patiently until he returns. So will most of us, I believe. And some, most of whom don't even care and have certainly never donated anything but still seem to feel that Jim Shooter is their bitch, will kick and shout and make as much noise as possible. But then again, they'd do that no matter what happened.

4. In the meantime, I'd also be happy if JayJay has the time and will to contribute a few guest posts, as I have thoroughly enjoyed reading her posts too in the part. Go for it, JayJay! 🙂

1. Why are you so determined to see creators fail? You're like that guy on CBR who celebrates everytime a book is cancelled, and he says "Ha Ha, I told you so, It wasn't aimed at me so it sucks". You don't like Manapaul (and I use his name strictly as a placeholder, for all the talents you seem to despise), fine, but why do you want to see him unemployed?

2. Why are you against creativity? I get it. You dont like Manapaul, Greg Land, Frazer Irving, Mike Mignola. Much like Shooter, you're stuck on this belief that comics can only be on a six panel grid. Nothing else. Does it not occur to you that this doesn't apply to every artist, and this product, is just as valid as the old school stuff you value? Here's a truth: Some artists go outside the lines, and, you, and Shooter, need to accept this. Not to mention you're a Jim Shooter-era fan, an era in which if you had a black/LGBT or minority character, you were out of luck, so those stories are out too.

3. Do you really think Shooter has a place in todays market? Do you think Snyder and Capullo (just as an example), are going to leave Batman and Dan Diio is going to pick up the phone and call Shooter and say "Hey, we've had this ground breaking, top selling run come to an end, why don't you try and top that, bring Al Milgrom along too?"

I'm genuinely curious here, because I've never met anyone as vehemently against an industry they're purportedly a fan of.

The truth is, the creators you cite helped drive the industry into the ground, so they are running to where they can make an income. From everything I've read about Hollywood, it chews people up and spits them out. You are only as accepted as your last box office draw. "Working in Hollywood" is often like being a flavor of the month. If Geoff Johns had a stable career in Hollywood, he would have stayed in Hollywood.

Mignola's art is below par. His movies are only tolerable because they were created with Guillermo del Toro. Del Toro didn't need Mignola at all which is obvious if you've seen Pan's Labyrinth.

Again I ask if you are joined with Manapul at the hip? What is your grudge? Have you bought some signature series CGC books that will be worthless when his career tanks? Please elaborate.

–The only people I know keeping the Byrne Legend alive are a bunch of zealots on his board and some sociopaths at Imwan. Take those few dozen out of the mix….and is Byrne still relevant enough for a whole blog?–

As someone else said, Byrne's trigger happy censorshop means that his board isn't as funny as this place. Besides, in the shop I work in, we still get people happy to come in and buy Trio, and Next Men. I didn't see anyone falling over themselves to check out Turok.

Internet Tough Guy Al

The only people I know keeping the Byrne Legend alive are a bunch of zealots on his board and some sociopaths at Imwan. Take those few dozen out of the mix….and is Byrne still relevant enough for a whole blog?

–If these guys felt secure in their careers, why are they working in comics?

I don't really see their critics stalking them and making up lies. Why are you here? Is it to defend Manapul? Are you joined at the hip with him?

I guess the only thing that really concerns me is that people lacking talent and quality standards are teaching and working in other mediums that won't be as easy to avoid.–

You don't get it, do you boy? These other interests, like teaching, came to them, and said, "Hey, we like your comics work, come do something with us".

And, by the way, a hearty fuck you. Bendis and Brubaker, and Rucka's, their standards are pretty high. Manapaul I know you despise, so there's no pont even going there. You don't think DC and Dark Horse have high standards? Mike Mignola and Eric Powell don't care as much as Shooter did? Paul Levitz, Jeff Lemire, Scott Snyder (no, wait, Shooter had a go at him too, so obviously he's in your shitlist)

–Though I do wish that Neal Adams would post online more about his work experiences or to give tutorials and general advice. That would be phenomenal! He's as much a treasure as anyone else, but we barely get any output from him in this regard.–

Neal, unlike Shooter, has not insulted everyone working in comics, and is currently working in the comics industry, for Marvel, on an X-Men project, with a younger writer, in a concept Shooter might not have heard of before, called COLLLABORATION

-As stores continue to close and funds to pay talent begins to dry up, eventually all the employed creators that pat each other on the back everyday will be looking for jobs too.-

Well, off the top of my head-Manapaul works on a tv show.

-Brian Bendis is a college lecturer, writing a book about comics, writing a screenplay, and is an executive producer of two tv shows.

-Greg Rucka is an accomplished novelist

-Edwin Brubaker has moved to Los Angeles to co-produce an adaptation of his Criminal work.

In the scattered communications I've had with JayJay, she's been nothing but kind, informative, and helpful.

Obviously, Mr. Anonymous feels threatened in some way. Are you a creator fearing the bar will be raised and you'll have to work a little harder? Are you an editor fearing Jim is more qualified for the job and could take you? You are obviously here for a reason. I don't care for Anime, but you don't see me seeking out and posting on an Anime forum insulting everyone. You validate the integrity of everything here by pouring your vitriol upon it.

Arthur Nichols

Arthur Nichols

Anonymous,

Why do you act like you're bitter that Jim Shooter broke up with you? He's not your girlfriend. He's your blogger.

I'm friends with someone I speak to almost ever other day of the week. Or another whom I speak to once a week to maybe twice a month. Someone else whom I don't get to speak to for sometimes well over a year or so, because he's dealing with terminally sick family members.

I'm good friends with a wonderful woman in NJ, and we don't get to talk or Skype with each other but once in a blue moon. Then there's someone in Brooklyn, whom I mainly chat with almost every day, and Skype with a couple times a month. Then there's the other in San Antonio, whom I get to talk with every other couple of six months or so. Also a good friend in Hong Kong whom I Skype with on a regular-ish basis.

Every person, as every situation, is different.

Whenever any of these friends and I do talk again, it's like the conversation never really stopped! Like we just picked up from when we last spoke.

That's the way the world works. How can you not know that?

That's how I feel about reading this blog. Or Mark Evanier's blog. Or Neil Gaiman's. Though I do wish that Neal Adams would post online more about his work experiences or to give tutorials and general advice. That would be phenomenal! He's as much a treasure as anyone else, but we barely get any output from him in this regard.

But I still check his website on occasion, and search for any videos of his. Whenever he actually posts something, it deserves my attention and respect, as does Shooter's blog posts do, whenever he's able to post anything.

But I don't go around loudly moaning and bitching at Neal Adams, accusing him of being an 'evil asshole' that's depriving the world of his greatness on a schedule I dictate! For heaven's sake, the man's got a life, a business to run, family to spend time with… so I do what every correct-thinking person in this world does: I go about my life, and am pleasantly surprised whenever I get to read something that Neal Adams/Mark Evanier/Neil Gaiman/Jim Shooter/WHOMEVER posts online!

And when that happens, I'm simply appreciative. I'm not acting out like some idiot child who was deprived of his toy.

I would trust my friends to have their reasons for being absent for a while. But I tell you, the last thing I would do would be to attempt to publicly humiliate and denigrate someone in an effort to bully them to do only what I wanted, like some mean-sprited asshole.

I truly don't care why you or Dave James O'Neill are being such malicious, terrible people here in this blog. I only care that you are choosing to be, and that you should stop your hateful stupid behavior.

To answer your first two questions: I know Jim cares for his fans, and believes that they are worthy of his respect, because I've worked up close and personal for Jim for a number of years, in various companies. I pay attention to people. I can disagree with the man about this or that, but I know him well enough to be sure that he's not a disdainful, hateful man.

You know, like you and others have been.

Jim Shooter does not owe anyone an explanation as to why he's absent from this blog for so long. I can only speculate that Jim isn't blogging because he's busy with family or work, and I'm okay with that. So should you be, and you damned well know it.

Anonymous

Hello JayJay,

I'd like to thank you and Mr. Shooter for putting together a very informative and eye-opening blog, and I sincerely appreciate your efforts in maintaining and managing all the web-related aspects of the blog.

As an improvement, I'd like to propose disabling Anonymous posting. It won't do much more than make the more vile posters have to jump through a more hoops before spitting their venom on the comment section, but hopefully it might act as a deterrent for that very reason.

I'm posting as Anonymous just to say that anyone can, but when everyone does it makes "Anonymous" sound like a schizophrenic group of rabid monkeys.

Anonymous

Jim doesn't owe us anything. It's his blog, and he can post once a year if he wants

Slamming Jay Jay is a classless move. Jay Jay has shown nothing but humility and helpfulness in her running of this blog. To insult her only demonstrates your own boorishness

And I'll reiterate what someone else already said. Jim and Jay Jay can do whatever they want with the donations. When you give something away, that is what you are doing, giving it. It's not yours anymore, you've given it away. If you can't wrap your head around that fact, then don't give

To Jim and Jay Jay, I thank you for all the work you've done on this blog. I know it's not been easy, and it's a thankless job. But I hope the blog will stay up. Jim's posts are a breath of light and truth amidst a sea of bullshit on the Web

Definat1 – I hope you continue to post here. I enjoy and appreciate your candor and the direct way you speak the truth

Anonymous

Cesare, I thought I sufficiently shamed you into silence last time but it looks like you've crawled out of your hole again. So it "sickens" you that someone would go after Jay Jay, huh? Well think about this chump:

2. Jay Jay says she will sell ads to support the site. She never sells any. She says she doesn't know how to sell ads. I just Googled "How to sell ads on a website" and got so many hits I stopped counting. Oh wait, I forgot there is one ad on this site…Jay Jay's.

3. Jay Jay has been Jim's assistant and friend for many years. She has been a witness to history, with first hand knowledge of all sorts of interesting stories involving other comics pros. Jim is gone for two months, she posts nothing.

So guess what Cesare, I am going after Jay Jay. Because from where I'm sitting, Jay Jay seems pretty useless.

Anonymous

Arthur, do you think Jim cares about his fans? Do you think Jim thinks his fans are worthy of his respect? If you had a friend who you talked to on the phone maybe once a week and that friend suddenly stopped calling and would never pick up the phone when you called, would you think that friend owed you an explanation as to why? Conversely, would you do that to a friend of yours? And after awhile, if there was no explanation forthcoming despite your numerous attempts to find out why, maybe you would one day figure that friend can go to hell for all you care.

Previously, I commented that I didn't care for Manapul's art. I don't. What I didn't mention was that I was so annoyed by the way Jim's Legion run was handled by DC, I never intend to ever buy another DC comic until Dan Didio is removed from his position at DC.

Likewise, I was so annoyed with Gold Key character relaunch and the poor handling by Dark Horse, I no longer have any intention of buying ANY Dark Horse products either.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think DC or Dark Horse care. I don't think any of the employed creators care that fans of comics are dropping them. Rather than asking fans what's wrong, they seek claques instead.

I saw some interesting posts today on a messageboard. It appears comic stores are still closing. Avengers is approaching $1.3 billion dollars in worldwide box office totals, yet comic creators are out there praising each other online amidst sales that are quite pathetic.

Jim's editorial guidelines have been insulted, yet his guidelines increased sales and assisted in growing the industry. The industry treats him as though he's a threat.

I'm not buying comics now. I don't care what book Manapul draws. He can draw on bathroom walls for all I care. I know I'm not buying a comic with his name on it in the future unless I see improvements in his style of art and storytelling ability. The same is true for 95% of the steadily employed comic writers and artists out there.

As stores continue to close and funds to pay talent begins to dry up, eventually all the employed creators that pat each other on the back everyday will be looking for jobs too.

My advice for the publishers is to listen to the people who speak against the status quo. The industry absolutely must reach new audiences rather than alienating the one that's been loyal for up to 40 years.

In the past year, I've been shrinking my online presence. I've been purging messageboards of my posts. I don't care if my critics silence me and rejoice. I'm willing to help them. I've spent 10's of thousands of dollars on comics in my life. An industry which is unresponsive to my complaints simply guarantees I won't spend that much more. They save me money and I move on confidently with no regrets.

I've donated and I don't feel ripped off, I mean, how much can you donate, $5, maybe $10 once in a while? That's the practically the price of one or two lame comics, and you don't expect any publisher to keep giving you free books after your first purchase do you?

Gregg H

HAHAHAHA….great stuff. This moron is blaming Shooter because Valient, a company that was thriving and growing by leaps and bounds with him in charge, goes bankrump AFTER they get rid of him. Clearly this shows how incompetant Jim is. Riiiiight.

Arthur Nichols

Anonymous, that was almost a civil response you posted. Almost.

You make false assumptions, fueled by your need to be a flagrantly malicious person with every post here that you write. That doesn't speak well of you – or others like you who enjoy being the terrible people you've demonstrated yourselves to be – at all, and I hope one day in your personal life you get your head handed to you for being that way to someone's face.

But let me address what you said: you're right in that it would be nice for Jim to let us all know that he's forced to take an extended break from this blog due to whatever personal or professional things are pulling him one way or the other. I also read Mark Evanier's blog, and I do appreciate when he puts up the picture of his soup can, his way of letting everyone know he's not going to be posting for a while. But it's not a requirement.

That Jim doesn't hasn't adopted this practice I believe isn't because he's thumbing his nose at his fans like you say. I believe it's because he simply hasn't decided to do it yet, likely because he's too busy and hasn't gotten around to it. Time does fly when life dumps a million things onto your head all at once.

Your bloviating presumptions that Jim is openly disrespecting his fans is utter bullshit. I can attest to this from personal experience. When I worked for Jim at Valiant and elsewhere, I have only seen Jim try his damnedest to provide everyone the best quality product, whether in story form, or certainly in person with the fans, this blog being a good example.

Of all the times I've worked for Jim, he's never been this vile caricature of a person that you and other people try to paint him as. Jim himself has admitted that he's not a "people person", and I know from personal experience that this is true.

To be clear, I disagree with Jim on a number of things. He and I have butted heads at various times, but in no way have I ever experienced Jim to be kind of person you have tried to make him out to be. I believe Shooter has enough equity with the vast majority of people here who look forward to his return.

I think we have no problem being patient, even though we'd appreciate even the shortest of posts from him from time to time, letting us know he's busy elsewhere. But even then, this is still not a requirement. This is his blog, and he has the right to conduct himself how he sees fit.

To ascribe bad intentions on Jim is not only wrong, it's also cowardly, especially in the way you and others have been doing it incessantly.

Also, if anyone has ever been paying attention to Jim's posts, I remember Jim telling everyone upfront long ago about how the money donated to this blog would be going to JayJay for her services to maintain this blog. So you and others really need to take a Chill Pill. Or rather, a Chill Suppository.

And now you're being a malicious person to JayJay, who has been consistently nice and helpful, the opposite to anything you're being in this life? Your accusations and presumptions makes you to be nothing but a bullying fool.

Anonymous

Jay Jay, I can see why your postings are not popular. Really, you somehow manage to post multiple items and yet add nothing of value. Since you can't seem to grasp the point, I'll make it clear why so many people are pissed off. Let's get this out of the way first: we could care less where the donations went. Once Jim gets the money he can give it to you, his favorite presidential candidate, or throw it down the sewer for all we care. So it's not about the money. And it's not about how often Jim posts. Would we love once a day? Of course, who wouldn't?! But we recognize that Jim has a life and may at times have issues good and bad to deal with that prevent him from giving this site his constant attention. Mark Evanier runs a blog and there are times when he can't post. But you know what he does Jay Jay? He shows a scintilla of RESPECT for his fans by actually letting us know that he won't be able to post. Or if he is in the midst of an extended absence, gives a quick update to let us know he's got stuff going on and will be back ASAP. Sometimes he goes into detail about his reasons, sometimes he does not. Whatever, he doesn't have to. The point is that by at least giving SOME explanation for his absence he shows that he gives at least the tiniest shit about his fans. And that, Jay Jay, is why we are mad at Jim. Because he can't be bothered to even show that small amount of appreciation. So when a person disrespects his fans and shows that he thinks he is so far above them that he does not owe them any explanation, it is quite natural for those fans to develop feelings of mutual disrespect.

Anonymous

JayJay i think your stories are just as good as Jim's especially the one where you were sick and had to work and Mori (i can't spell his name). tried to give you some kind of soup or drink that you said was gross but you were appreciative of his kindness towards you and how he was trying to help was very sweet and kind.

i understand not wanting to air your troubles for everyone especially strangers but i personally would have liked to known it was going towards you (because you are awesome and thank you for not getting angry at my criticism of this situation) than a blog that is free to post.

Sonofspam, you make a good point and I will see what Jim thinks of the idea. Though when I've done guests posts in the past they weren't too popular. lol.

I've been trying not to air my troubles through all that was going on, it just didn't seem appropriate. But when Jim is taking heat for trying to help me, it's upsetting. I've gotten him in enough trouble over the years.

Dear JayJay the problem being that the donations where asked to keep the blog alive even tho the blog is free. in the donations link there is never any hint that you or Jim were having any financial problems and you always talked about your screen printing job and it seemed to be doing ok with you saying that you were getting work from rock bands and others sometimes.

As for the name calling of Jim Shooter that certainly wasn't from me i respect the man greatly even when i don't agree with him.

basically i just feel like there should have been more honesty when asking for donations and whom it is going for and why. and of course if you would have said it was for you JayJAY i think there would be less complaints now of course you yourself could help keep this blog alive by posting stories and information especially since you where there for everything.

Anonymous

Anonymous

Dave Sim constructed a whole philosophy which basically said men are worth more than women – and I don't mean monetarily. To be honest, I had started to find Cerebus hard going after 200 so I haven't followed the whole controversy.

Hey People, Jim was kind of prodded into doing this blog by a few people who thought it would benefit him. For months our community reaped our own benefits by being able to share Jim's stories, as he was very generous with us. But the reality is that tangible personal gains from his frequent posts haven't materialized. Working this blog entails a lot of time consuming research. Assorted health issues, bull-s**t legal situations and the quest for actual paying jobs have to take precedence. Even though Jim has many different stories blocked out in various stages of completion I'm not surprised by his avoidance of this site as it has acrimoniously deteriorated into something less than a pleasant diversion. And, to be frank, unfortunately that deterioration was partially a result of the communities attempts to fill the void left by Jim's absence. Even when sincere pros like Art and Bob pitch in with informative posts they get lambasted. The inmates have taken over the asylum.

So buddy, you're one of the hardest working people I know. Just post something juicy every couple weeks for us to chew on. …..And if you really can't muster the time and/or desire to keep this going just put your cards on the table. Give these people something or simply put us all out of our misery. Thank you!

Anonymous

For the record, Jim decided to put up the donations link last December to be able to pay me for my work on the blog at a time when I had no other work and was unable to make ends meet. All the donation money went to me. And I thank people very much for the help! We got a very good amount of donations in December and also some in January, but they tapered off and we only had a few after that. Which is understandable and fair. I tried to sell some ads for the blog, but was unable to. I really don't know how to sell ads.

I had talked Jim into doing the blog because I thought it would help him in many ways, and I believe it did in some.

But to the jerks who want to believe that Jim is dishonest or lazy or mean, even in the face of what I think is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, all I can say is simply… You are wrong.

Anonymous

Nice try, but the parallels aren't there exactly because the guy who wrote to Gaiman did not mention that Martin had solicited money from him to keep the blog going or that he had in fact paid anything. Further, his complaint was not that Martin had disappeared without a trace, but instead that Martin was writing about other topics which were not as interesting to him. Why don't you write to Gaiman and ask him what THIS situation: what a blogger's responsibility is once he starts asking for and accepting money to run the blog and then disappears for two months.

I don't know if this has been posted yet (I could only get through so many comments before this thread and the last turned trollerific), but the tone of some of the comments about Mr. Shooter, Ms. Jackson (if you're nasty, and some of you certainly are) and the blog came to mind when a friend posted this Neil Gaiman blog post on FB. Just something to keep in mind…

Love the blog, other than these recent comment threads. And Mr. Shooter, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on John Byrne, comics, Marvel movies, and anything else you just to write, when YOU CHOOSE to write it. Thanks again.

Thank God I never gave Shooter any cash. for this website. Then I'd feel aggreived.

For the record, I'd never contribute, to ANY website, that didn't offer a cast iron guarantee that any posts I made were protected by Free Speech, and not censored or edited by the moferators. I do, in fact, pay for membership to a messageboard (obviously, I get more than the messageboard for my money), and it helps, knowing that the people who post, are at the least, not total morons.

Marvelman

Yeah, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I wouldn't mind a little bit of moderation on this blog. It's one thing to disagree with Jim's critique of Ultimate Spider-Man or his account of Jack Kirby's fight with Marvel. It might even be okay to say that he is lying about it. (That's not my opinion. I'm just giving an example.) But it's quite another thing to engage in name-calling or to monopolize this blog with a personal vendetta. I'm Canadian and I like it when people are polite or at least civil. There might even be some Americans who feel the same way.:)

Anonymous

ja

The wonderful part about this new policy is that all the time I've spent pushing back on malicious jerks like 'Anonymous' and Dave James O'Neill for being the terrible people they are, is the same amount of time they're going to waste when they keep posting their vile crap.

I don't mind that Jim has work to do and deadlines that pay the bills but i think its very nay extremely hypocritical to ask people to pay for a blog to keep running (even tho blogs are free here and cost nothing to produce at least in this instance) I'm sure i will get reprimanded by someone on here for this, But when Jim and Jay started asking for money and donations for a free blog it really irked me but i decided to keep my mouth shut but the fact that he has barely updated his blog for months (since i haven't checked this blog in forever and it has barely even been updated)so yeah that's my opinon and i'm sticking to it.

Arthur Nichols

That's a good point that you make, Art. Jim and I had sort of thought to try to be fair and let everyone have a voice, but the extreme posts don't really do much besides show what amazing unpleasantness people are capable of.

Arthur Nichols

JayJay,

I have a proposal on how to deal with the hateful creeps here on the comments section.

I know it's a bit of extra effort on your part, but I'm wondering what would be wrong – since I assume as a moderator on this site, you read everything that's posted here – with you manually deleting the specifically malicious posts that pop up here all too often?

This wouldn't be like the John Byrne forum, as he bans everyone who has a differing opinion from him. This would be simply deleting posts that cross the line into malevolent, insulting behavior that revels in demonizing Jim, that wouldn't be tolerated in a public setting.

There's a huge distinction between banning/censoring people as Byrne does to avoid even the appearance of criticism, vs. deleting malicious people's posts, expunging their hatred and disrespect while leaving critical posts written in a more respectful manner alone.

This would, to a large degree, help direct people toward a more civil tone of discussion.

As I understand it, manually deleting a malicious comment through Blogger's settings would be quite easy to do. It would just take an extra couple seconds after you read someone's hateful post, to just delete it.

Why not do that?

By all means, keep the criticism! Jim has no problem explaining and defending himself. I'm just proposing a way to temper the open hostility by the few people here who love to be total embarrassments to their parents.

I'm also among those concerned for Jim's absence. However – without delving into anything personal – I do hope that Jim's all right, and that his absence reflects how extra busy he is. I know he must have very good reasons for being away for so long.

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous,

I am not saying that your critique was faulty – by no means, but with regard to some of your comments, here is a snippet from another poem, by a renowned poet. Any thoughts?

Mysta Precedent.

Barely a twelvemonth afterThe seven days' war that put the world to sleep,Late in the evening the strange horses came. By then we had made our covenant with silence.But in the first few days it was so stillWe listened to our breathing and were afraid.On the second dayThe radio failed: we turned the knobs: no answer.

Anonymous

Anonymous

The Stygian pulls on the massive mesh. A badge of honour borne, it trails abaft The monster as it turns towards its fresh Foes now – the fleet of frigates, battle craft. Great engines grip the moment, grasp and pull. The pulse of two attack ships called to charge. Deck ordnance, primed, aimed at the monster's skull, Send calibrated rounds to rip the large, Black, armoured beast apart. They fire and fail. The Stygian between them swiftly sweeps. Small arms fire flashes out, to no avail. Imperious, it drags them to the deeps.

Two frigates lost, the fleet renews its quest. The Stygian returns to meet their fire. A hail of mortars cracks the creature's chest. Such swollen agony brings one desire, To smash the ship and crush it like a toy, To send it reeling deep to meet its kin. But while the monster's mind's set to destroy, A roar of cannons joins the battle's din. Where senses sang, they now with needles scream, A hurricane of hatred shot to hell. A wrecked and wretched creature, once supreme, Kaleidoscopes of scattered, shattered shell.

Blizzard for vision, a traitor is touch, The Stygian, with venom, thrashes out. Screams is its hearing, insanity such That hardly does it register the rout. The last of the metal clads are swallowed. The failure of naval intervention. Familiar routes to the sea bed followed As madness emerges from redemption. Valediction. A last departing shot. Its fizzing brings the monster to the brink. Maelstrom beneath the beast. A bomb bursts hot. Enough to melt its carapace to ink.

Silence supplants the violence of the waves, And only the ocean's eternal sway Laps over the sailors' low, sunken graves. Drowned ships, doused lives, dominion washed away. In the whirlwind of The Stygian's mind, Within its dead and naked, ice-cold soul, It senses that scavenging human kind Will poach no more from the great oceans' shoals. The surface dwellers will no longer cross These seas to commit further offences, And if such triumph brings a mortal loss,Better that than failure's consequences.

Gristle groans. A rasping rumour rises, Grinding under unrelenting motion. Its tortured cries, bestial compromises, Echo over only open ocean. And dying, The Stygian tears apart Its vestments, like a holy man ashamed. A final bellow twists the creatures heart. It slowly sinks, by its own kind reclaimed. A slow light ghosts across the broken form. With deepest blue the body is infused. As fading pulses end the raging storm, Demands of flesh are finally refused.

The sailor stares two thousand metres. His story done, his beard bent, he smiles. Was it truly one of God's own creatures, Or was it meant to merely haunt the child? Just imagination? An old tar's gin? The mariner's hardened hands fly no more. The stripling's eyes search for the truth within. Was it just a tale, just a legend, or… Beneath the waves, in darkness' domain, Where ancient currents carved their channels chilled, Canyons deep in the great abyss remain, And 'midst their ghosts a fearsome form lies. Stilled.

Anonymous

Jim and JayJay, and everyone.On the back of the previous controversial Nelson/Murdoch plot outline, here is a text which might be suitable as the basis for a graphicnovel. Your thoughts, pro or con, are welcome. Due to length, it must be split into two halves. Regards.Mysta Precedent.

A short scene setter before you read the text.An old sailor sits on a huge boulder on a rocky beach. Beside him is a young boy. They are talking and gazing out over the ocean. The pair melt into the distance as our mind’s eye floats out to sea and is there submerged deeper and deeper under the water…

The Stygian.

Beneath the waves, in darkness' domain, Where ancient currents carved their channels chilled, Canyons deep in the great abyss remain, And from their ghosts a fearsome form is filled. Fleeting is the cold, grey phantom's presence, Flirting with depth, but by the depths denied. Floating, faceless dots of luminescence Flashdance in harmony; they pulse, they glide. Through this veil, this surging, swirling wonder, The Stygian, across the ocean floor, Crawls, then strides, then sweeps, then strikes asunder Ancient outcrops, a rude prelude to war.

Ascending through howling streams of pressure, Its armoured lines with alien light aglow, Lighter, for the monster, without measure, Than for the dismal denizens below, The Stygian reaches for the surface. Plates, like pistons, pump over living plate, Bloodless overblades from its carapace Turn tirelessly, its twin tails oscillate With relentless metronomic rhythm. Striations stripe the former silhouette As towards the outer realm it's driven. Strange changes cease, its ordered course is set.

What chords haunt the deeps where this devil dwelled? What evil beats behind its brutish brow? By what strain is the Stygian impelled? What symphony of hate? What silent vow? In which god's fantasy did it feature? What monstrous union gave this monster birth? Which lost epoch's last surviving creature Would soon command the oceans of the Earth? Innocent of answers, a racing moon slips across a brisk and crystal cut night. A surge, heave, shell shock, a blister balloon Shatters like ice in the orb's pristine light.

Piercing shrieks emerge from deep and the beastErupts and stands proud of the wind-whipped spume. And on the horizon, far to the east, Ploughs the prow of the Thai trawler 'Monsoon'. Slow and slight its power swells, and whiskers, Fine night-borne strands, escape their chaste cocoon. 'Gainst the bow a wash of warm, wet whispers Play gaily round a boatswain's ballad's tune. Aft's the catch of sidewinder and twister. Hard hands haul in the hopeless, captured crop Before grinding guts and gears register Unexpected, instantaneous stop!

The creature's sleeker than the slickest shark. Like a skewering spear it strikes the ship. As nemesis it inhabits the dark. It reaches deep to slash and slice and strip. Where stern and sturdy cold steel rivets cracked, And gargoyles, gouged and grey, gape side by side, Their skulls and bones with mocking efforts snapped, Snagged sinew snakes a red dye on the tide. The trawler turns obscenely in its course. The brittle bowline, breached, a sucking wound. Its nets are rent with mighty calls to force, The 'Monsoon' slips below, a vessel doomed.

Full to crescent passes the moon's changed phase As seven vessels seek the monster's wake. Five frigates and two trawlers travel days With all of sea supremacy at stake. Sonar calls, and the Stygian replies. Creased features from its lowly, floating lair Survey the brine. Below, ships' nets untied. Within a stroke, The Stygian is snared. But who is the captor? Who is the prey? As shouts of startled seamen shred the scene, Two struggling trawlers, their nets torn away, Are hurled to the depths, deathbound submarines.

Anonymous

Anonymous

(5)

‘I know. I’m a bastard. All men are bastards. She’s tipped out all my stuff into the hallway between our two flats. Mrs. Fergusson and the Trallieways aren’t happy. Blocking up their access and like.’ ‘Shouldn’t you move it, then?’ ‘S’pose so. Though she put it there. Is it my responsibility to move something if someone else put it there?’ ‘Well, if it’s your stuff…’ ‘Even if it is. I didn’t put it there! I didn’t cause the blockage!’ ‘Jimmy, it’s no use…’ The television in the corner of the shop suddenly started to operate with an increased volume. One of the coffee drinkers had found the remote control. It was a rolling sports news bulletin that was providing a round up before the eagerly anticipated rugby union programme. The European Ryder Cup captain had resigned due to ill health. A celebrated American golfer was being interviewed about the situation. ‘Of course, in my day it was just the Limeys versus the Yanks,’ he drawled in an arch fashion. ‘We were barely jumped up colonials in those days. These days, of course, the Brits bring a full posse. You got Krauts, Frogs, and Spics, Eye-ties, Jocks and Micks. What chance do we have. We may be the Great Satan but that don’t mean Jack when you’re five down and six to play.’ Thankfully, the interview was terminated before any further non-pc references could be uttered. Jimmy turned his attention from the television back to Veronica. ‘Reminds me of Tiger. You remember his faux pas? His ‘spaz’ comment?’ Veronica nodded. Television again. The rugby was starting. ‘Aussies against the Argies with a Pomme referee. Which side do you think hates him the most?’ the commentator was asking in good humour. The game started, customers came in to watch the match, Jimmy returned to his duties behind the counter and Veronica, not being a sports fan, decided to stroll back home. Klack-Klack-Klack-Klack-Klack. ‘Ow.’ The influence of Wacky Jaqui was apparently ubiquitous. Klack-Klack-Klack-Klack-Klack-Klack-Klack-Klack-Klack-Klack. ‘Ow.’ Someone had scrawled on a wall ‘Klackies go home.’ At last, a piece of graffiti she could wholeheartedly agree with.

Anonymous

(4)

Eight weeks before Christmas, Veronica received a phone call. A small company had done its research and wanted Veronica, as the originator of the cleavage or crack story, to have an opportunity to make a bundle from it. They were going to produce Bouncers and Bonkers, a board game based on the famous national pastime – fun for all the family. Veronica gave it some serious thinking for about two seconds and declined the offer. The game reached the shops just as Stephanie Garland, her secret agenda and a pair of Klackers hit the screens. Next day, the story was done. Replaced by Klackers. How fleeting is fame, how ephemeral success. It had been a glorious autumn. Her mind in neutral, Veronica continued to stare absently out at the snowy townscape. Two cars passed followed by a double decker filled with trussed up passengers behind misted, condensation smeared windows. The side of the bus had the annoying advertisement for Klackers, featuring ‘Jaqui the Wacky Klackie’. Was it the absurd gurning face or the outrageous hair-do that provoked Veronica’s antagonism to the ad? Or perhaps the text? It was… Jimmy Arkwright sat down opposite Veronica. It had been a busy morning. ‘Mind if I take the weight off here?’ he asked. He knew the answer. He and Veronica had knocked around together since school. Some at their school had even thought they were sister and brother. Veronica waved him into the vacant chair. Jimmy had brought his own personal mug of coffee from behind the serving hatch. He took a long swallow and set it aside. ‘Jannine and me split.’ he said, using an overly up beat tone. ‘Oh, no. Jimmy. Sorry to hear it.’ ‘She heard I was seeing Marie-Anne.’ ‘Oh.’

Anonymous

(3)

The following Sunday, Veronica’s piece was the front page of the Lifestyle section. A close up on the anonymous plumbers bum, a cropped shot of the blue dress and the winning caption ‘Cleavage or Crack? The great British divide.’ So that was the story. Where did you, the reader, position yourself? Was it classy cleavage or cool backside. It was a throwaway piece of journalism for a slow week and should have died by Sunday night. Guess what… It didn’t. Hello Magazine, perhaps miffed that they had missed the exclusive scoop of a pair of low slung baggies, gave it the cover treatment. Gone were the details of Ken’s divorce from Kathy. Nowhere to be seen were the celebrity diet successes. ‘Backside or Boobs’ ran the headline with accompanying photos, naturally. Lady couldn’t leave well alone either. ‘Bosoms or Bottoms?’ was their less than original text. More photos, more in depth analysis. It was becoming monotonous by the third week, then The Sun, ever vigilant for an original viewpoint went one better. It was a wet Monday and Britain needed cheering up. The brains trust at Britain’s best selling paper gave us a fresh page three game. Tits or Trouser. The alliteration remained standard but the story had moved on. Tons of photos, all cropped to within an inch of comprehensibility. Can you name these celebrities. It was genuinely difficult to discern the front crevices from the rear ones, never mind put a name to any of them, though Veronica was convinced that what turned out to be Johnny Tinlgass was Jenny O’Hare. Where The Sun sets its pioneering toes, can The Mirror be far behind? In this case, no. Stacked or Slapped was basically the same game as Tits or Trouser – only it had a better title. Britain was caught in a fever of chewing over narrower and narrower photographs. There wasn’t a newspaper in the country that didn’t have some version or other of the game sweeping through the magazine and newspaper industry. Can you pick Tony McMorrassy’s backside? Can you finger Mary Beachwell’s cleavage? It was a monster and it was out of control. Yes, not a single newspaper was immune to the phenomenon. ‘FTSE or CAC’ trumpeted the Financial Times. It was something to do with which exchange had the steepest ascent/descent and the steepest descent/ascent. They didn’t quite understand the milieu. Veronica didn’t understand the FT game. It seems nobody did. It lasted two days before disappearing. Was this the end of it? No. The games had been running for almost six weeks when Private Eye waded in with Knockers or Shit-hole. The idea being to recognise photographs of z-list celebs with a black rectangle covering only their crack or cleavage. This proved to be the hardest game of all.

Anonymous

(2)

Christmas. The holy child. Star in the east. Wise men. Peace on Earth. Whatever happened to keeping some days special? Veronica Sanders quietly despaired as she slid along the pavement to the battery shop. She passed the tall, intruder-proof railings of Coal Avenue junior school, a row of terraced houses and the town’s mosque that was situated at the intersection of three roads, next to the shops on the edge of the retail centre. A dark Bentley purred past Veronica, pulled to an assured halt outside the mosque and an Asian family alighted. They were dressed in western style clothes. The father and two sons, 10 and 8, wore jackets and ties, the mother had a long dress of simple design and the two girls, 5 and 6, were indistinguishable from any other smartly clothed British girls. The parents led the youngsters into the mosque, their laughing and playing ceasing as they entered the double glass doors. This is what they had been taught from an early age. Respect for their prophet. Same as it had always been, the wife and girls wiped their feet and, shoeless, carried straight on. The father and boys peeled off to the left. Veronica took in the whole scene as she slowly passed the low, squat building. On the wall to the left of the glazed double doors, someone had used an aerosol to express their abhorant artistic philosophy. Packi,s go home. Lynne Truss for Prime Minister. A teenager dashed past Veronica. He clipped her elbow with his season four box set of Battlestar Galactica, but that didn’t slow him down. He sped and slid away, oblivious to the collision. Five doors past the mosque is the multi racial coffee shop ‘Coffee an’ Naan’. A veritable united nations in a hot liquid emporium. Veronica entered and ordered an espresso from Jimmy Arkwright, the owner. She took a seat by the window and gazed, unseeing out. Where had it begun? When? The event that had turned her life upside down. Was it really only fourteen weeks ago? The photo shoot had been at Earls Court. It was midweek, Wednesday. Aubery Chisholme was premiering his winter collection and Stephanie Garland, a size fourteen, had a beautifully designed, tight, midnight blue, fitted dress with white and yellow stitching that looked like something Steve Ditko would have drawn. It cut a severe line across her bust and fell ankle length. Hello and Lady magazines were represented, as were a couple of the Sundays. One story, four different angles. In the back room, a quite cool dude was tinkering about with a gadget. He was a shirt and denim type. Low slung jeans. Too low. He turned to put the boiler element back in its place, bent down and there was the plumbers crack, plain to see. The antithesis of the show in the adjoining room. It was the madness of a second that witnessed the incongruous juxtaposition of denim and dress. It become a story, and the photograph was snapped. Two aspects of British society working almost face to face – well, face to something. The photo editor agreed to go with it, so a fifth angle was created.

Anonymous

This blog sure has been lacking bonhomie and good will recently. Different people, different values. Here’s a text in five parts for your edification. WARNING: do not read this if you get upset by naughty words.

Mysta Precedent.

(1)

…lak-Klak-Klak-Klak. ‘Ow!’ Klak-Klak-Klak-Klak-Klak-Klak-Klak-Klak-Klak-Klak-Klak. ‘Ow!’ Klak-Klak-Klak. ‘Ow!’ Virgin snow had long since been trudged to sluttish slush when Veronica Sanders ventured out on Boxing Day morning. The sky was almost spring like, bearing a sun that actually warmed an upturned face. The centre of town was as busy as any ordinary day – crowded with kids slipping off bikes and parents off to the shop that sells batteries. Klackers had not so mysteriously made a comeback. Some clothes horse with an agenda had described them as a ‘classic’ toy on the Loose Women daytime television show and that had pretty much been that. The toys that had been gearing up for Christmas domination had fallen by the wayside and Klackers had outsold their nearest competitor by six to one. Now they were fracturing the wrists of a whole new generation and providing noise pollution and sadistic entertainment to passers-by. Veronica found a patch of almost pure white and, with a satisfying crunch, mashed it under her heel. She half turned as she walked. The patch had begun to turn to slush. She knew how it felt! Klak-Klak-Klak-Klak-Klak… ‘Get out the fucken way!’ An unaware pedestrian, a woman of seventy, had cautiously ventured into the middle of the high street and a taxi had quickly charged her down. The vehicle slid to a stop inches from the septuagenarian, and the protozoa behind the wheel aired the Christmas greeting to anyone who cared to be within thirty metres. A mother and daughter, 50s and 30s respectively were walking nonchalantly towards Veronica. Both were dressed identically. A thin coat, down below knee length, covered pyjamas. No socks or tights, only open toed sandals. The mother carried five cans of a six-pack while the daughter nursed a carton of 600 cigarettes. ‘… and ’e’s an idle bloody bastard. Wouldn’t lift an ’and…’ Thankfully the conversation quickly melted into the ambient background street sounds of… Klak-Klak-Klak-Klak. ‘Ow!’

Anonymous

Dave, although Sim has made some 'questionable' statements while completing the latter part of his Cerebus opus, the High Society story has no connection with those views. It is well worth reading (as is the first 'phone book', but that book is more hit and miss in quality). By not reading it, you are denying yourself an entertaining , funny and substantial reading experience. I would definitely recommend it. I would use the analogy of Wagner. His views, that sometimes erred towards racist, do not make his music any less worth listening to. Listen to the Pilgrims Chorus from Tannhauser. I defy anyone not to be moved by it and Wagner's philosophies be damned. If it is still on sale, I recommend the 'Twilight of The Gods' double cd (the best bits of Wagner) especially the first disc.

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anon,

While I disagree with you, thank you for getting us back on point. I've checked out Jim's work on several comics, including Star Brand and Solar, and I find it to be average at best and, in general, subpar.

His writing at Marvel (which is what I am admittedly most familiar with) was simply awful.

I'm not taking potshots at Jim, as I've said I think he has excellent skills as an editor and editor in chief, and I do appreciate his critiques on this blog, which I often find to be spot on.

I just have never found his writing to be anything more than substandard.

Anonymous

ja,

Nice spin.

Regardless, I'd suggest that you look up the definition of non-standard when you get done sniffing your fingers. My point remains the same, the use of "irregardless" is inappropriate and saying so is hardly "uninformed."

Oh, and I've seen nothing to say that "irregardless" is "now" an "official word." What is the difference between an "official word" and a word? And, what do you mean by "now?"

And, if you aren't the person with the Secret Wars comments, than I guess you are the rude and malicious asshole. It seems odd that you would be so offended by my pointing out that anonymous poster's difficulty with the English language. that you would feel the need to argue semantics.

ja

Like you admitted, 'irregardless' is a word. Doesn't matter that I wouldn't agree with it, just like I don't like the fact that 'conversate' is now a word. But that's the way it is. Non-standard though it may be, it's still an official word.

I was just pointing out how you were wrong.

"No wonder you think Secret Wars was well written." I gave no opinion about Secret Wars. Another thing you are wrong about.

Anonymous

Hey Ja,

I'd suggest you read the mirriam-webster definition you provided. It says "use regardless instead." It does say it is a word, though, I'll give you that, though you ignore the fact that the proper term is "regardless."

You also seem to have a problem with the meanings of "subjective" and "objective."

Further, you seem to struggle with "cast members" vs. "characters."

I'll leave you to your uninformed and improper use of the english language.

Anonymous

Anonymous

@Anon

Have you read Secret Wars? It's arguably the best Doctor Doom story ever told, and one of the best Captain America stories I have ever read. Also, one thing that REALLY stands out about it is its spot-on characterization of cast member after cast member. PS, that is a THOROUGHLY lost art in comics today – proper characterization.

These are objective reason why Jim is a good writer, irregardless of whether I am a fan of his or not

PS – recommending something called High Society to Dave might be redundant – because judging by his posts, he's already been smoking something

–Short form of article: boy won't wear hearing assistance because "superheroes don't wear hearing aids", so company sends him a pic of Hawkeye, and then a custom one of a character based on the kid, to show him that yes, superheroes do wear hearing aids. Pretty cool.

I shouldn't have to. I shouldnt need to. Why do you not like Flash? "Oh, because Shooter says there's not enough Patronising text boxes telling us everything an average reader can figure out".

Why do I like Flash? I've liked Flash since I was six years old, and now, twenty three years later, there's an artist of real dynanism aand skill working on a book thats had some shitty artists on it (I'm looking at you, Scott Kollins). It sucks that there had to be a reboot to get the Barry Allen book I desperatly wanted for years, but, whatever. I love that fact that Manapaul is telling a long form story, with a cast of characters I'm genuinely interested in, and, unlike some books (cough batman cough), is using a mix of new villains, and the old geeks,

*Jim Shooter Voice* "Ya know what that needs, you little foreigner? A big stupid textbox taking up half the page telling everyone who these people are. Hell, if you don't do it, I'll just draw over the original art myself. I used to do that, back in the seventies, when Marvel let me run the place"

I really did intend to keep my promise and stay quiet, but I'm going to break my own advice once more, and before this comments page breaks off into a second one of the same nonsense. I promise this is the last time I'll address you.

There is an old Scandinavian folk tale called "God dag, mann – Økseskaft" – ("Good day, man – Axe handle"). You can read an English translation at the link there, but in short, it's about a man who was so hard of hearing that prior to a visit from the sheriff, he thought about what the sheriff might ask him and came up with the answers in advance. And he stuck by his answers no matter what the questions actually turned out to be:

«—How do you do, sir!» the sheriff said.«—Axe handle.» the ferryman answered.«—Very well – –», the sheriff said. «—How far away are we from the inn?» he asked the ferryman.«—Just up under this twig knot.» the ferryman said, and pointed a distance up on the axe handle.

In the specific example of the fairytale, the man's excuse was that he was hard of hearing, of course. However, the title of the tale has become an expression for "non sequitur" in Scandinavia: "God dag mann økseskaft" may be used about pretty much any situation where answers have no relevance to the questions being asked, or where what's being uttered is irrelevant nonsense in general.

You reminded me a lot about this folk tale, Dave. You stick to your story no matter what arguments you're faced with – your story being that Jim Shooter hates Francis Mannapul and actively tried to ruin his career because he drew a rock the wrong size, and that your opponents here consider Jim Shooter a God and hate Francis Mannapul because Jim Shooter hates him and because he's young and talented unlike Shooter and the othe washed-up old farts we like.

I feel tempted to ask if you even understand how ridiculous your posts and your "arguments" actually look to me and others (I was tempted to write "to most of us", but I guess that would be speculation…), but I really don't think you do. Either that or you pretend that you don't and just go on regardless.

You show no comprehension when faced with sound arguments, but you're perfectly willing to contradict yourself in the belief that you're making a point. And you're very eager to point people to Mannapul's answers to Jim's criticism, but it doesn't look like you have actually read it yourself, nor do you show any sign that you have actually read Jim Shooter's actual criticism either.

I don't wish to be mean. I want to be polite and respectful, and I have no desire to call you such names as some others here have (and which you certainly have done back). But a small piece of advice in parting: If you wish to be met with politeness and respect, show some yourself. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, make sure you actually have some. (I mean substantiated arguments, not accusations and wild assumptions). If you argue a case with actual arguments based in the same reality that most of us (sorry – that was speculation) live in, you may even have a chance of winning it.

P.S. I read Francis Mannapul's Flash every month, and rather enjoy it! The book is not without faults, but better than a lot out there. And it shows promising signs of a bright future for Francis Mannapul.

In a massive digression from the general trend of this thread, I ran across something just now that I thought the readers here would like.

Short form of article: boy won't wear hearing assistance because "superheroes don't wear hearing aids", so company sends him a pic of Hawkeye, and then a custom one of a character based on the kid, to show him that yes, superheroes do wear hearing aids. Pretty cool.

Anonymous

Dave you really are being intentionally obtuse. Look at page 3 again, 2nd panel. Look at the trees and buildings. Did he even draw those, or did the colorist do it? Look at those scribbled apes. Look at that "mountain" – a 3 year-old could have drawn that. Would you really like to compare that to the Mike Zeck background?? Are you even capable of doing so??

Now compare panel 2 and panel 4 of that page – when Flash makes his escape. Where did all the apes go that were surrounding him?? If he is fleeing, why is he closer to that stone monument in the second panel than he is in the first? Explain that Dave. Explain it. Is the bloody ape in the foreground the one who is jumping onto the monument in the second panel?? I have no idea. Why did all the apes drop their spears?? This is beyond bad storytelling – this is confusing, illogical, hackneyed storytelling.

–A question I have wondered about for a while; why did the much lauded Sandman series not have better, or at least uniform, artwork from issue to issue within the same story (not to mention throughout the series). If Gaiman was producing a landmark work, where was the commitment from DC to the series, to give it an inviting appearance. To my mind artwork is supposed to draw the reader into the story, not detract from the work so that at times it is almost so ugly it is unreadable. Does anyone agree with this view? Does anyone know why the art was sometimes so lamentably poor?–

Having on recently finished the Sandman, I can suggest a few theories.-The book didn't start out as a "landmark" work. I don't think they knew how successful it was going to be.-One of the original artists left really early on in the run. Another died. -The book "did" have a uniform look. Dave McKean's covers gave it a uniformity, compared to the inside pages, which, IMO, suited Gaiman's story, that everyone, and their society/culture, has a different interpretation of The Sandman.

-But if it's not on the page then it is poor storytelling

And if it's on the page, its a waste of a text box patronisingly telling readers something they can figure out for themselves.

–one thing Manapul does is strangely draw some characters as cartoony–

Its. A. Comic. Book. It's Meant to be CARTOONY.

-Muddy, lazy backgrounds–

This is extraordinarily nitpicky, but Manapaul doesn't colour his own stuff.

Anonymous

A question I have wondered about for a while; why did the much lauded Sandman series not have better, or at least uniform, artwork from issue to issue within the same story (not to mention throughout the series). If Gaiman was producing a landmark work, where was the commitment from DC to the series, to give it an inviting appearance. To my mind artwork is supposed to draw the reader into the story, not detract from the work so that at times it is almost so ugly it is unreadable. Does anyone agree with this view? Does anyone know why the art was sometimes so lamentably poor?

Anonymous

… (more)

Page 4. I'll be quick about this, I'm getting tired of typing. Let me add here Dave, that I'm just a novice. I'm just a shmuck who reads comics – never taken an art class. Top panel – why did Manapul draw that weird, triangle nose on Flash. He doesn't have that sharp-angled nose anywhere else in the comic. The middle panel with the apes just seems lazy to me. Boring. If you're going to put a panel full of apes, whey not make them look different, put them in different poses, something. Lazy, not a cardinal sin when having to hit deadlines. But boring. And plenty of good artists won't get lazy like that, so why applaud manapul for being one of the best

Lastly Dave, I'm glad you mentioned lazy backgrounds in your last post. You said the old farts don't draw backgrounds or ink their own stuff. Well your hero Manpul gets really lazy on backgrounds David. Look at this cover. Christ, the 2 dark apes on the left background look like he just drew the bigger one and made a smaller copy of it right beside it. This is on a cover, when your best stuff is supposed to be on display. Here's an old fart who knew backgrounds Dave. No phoning it in there. Byrne used to do this all the time too – meticulous backgrounds, even on interiors, not just covers. Manapul couldn't even do it for a cover.

Anonymous

Dave, I don't know why I am doing this – because you have shown an inordinate ability to bounce every idea sent your way off into oblivion. But here goes

On the first page of Flash #9, one thing Manapul does is strangely draw some characters as cartoony. The woman and the ape look pretty good, while the kid looks like something straight out of a Calvin and Hobbs strip. Weird, distracting as a reader. He also gets lazy on the backgrounds – but we'll slam that point home later. I'm also not sure how the truck got turned on its side so that Grodd (or whoever) could hit it on the bottom like that. If Grodd himself had knocked it over, he would have had to hit it on the side, not underneath as he is shown doing. This is not nit-picky, this is storytelling Dave

The next page is pretty nice. Some nice compositions of Flash and Grodd. Although I had to look at it 3 times before I noticed that Gordd is eating the heart of another gorilla. But I know, this is the 2010's, where kewl means much more than clear storytelling

The third page is fraught with problems. I'll name 3 of them. Muddy, lazy backgrounds. Second, something that plagues Manapul in a lot of his stuff that I have seen – inconsistent character design. Look at Flash in that middle panel. Weird little arm, strange, scribbled head. Contrast that with the other Flashes on that page, it looks weird, cartoony. And again, storytelling. How did Flash get from panel 2, nearly surrounded by gorillas to where he is in the next to last panel. Here's your cue to explain how he ran, or how it is Flash, super fast. But if it's not on the page then it is poor storytelling

Anonymous

–Or we could leave it at Manapul is a good artist, but not hardly one of the tops in comics right now–

Is that you saying that, or the Jim Shooter Sycophant.

In fact, go one further – name five guys doing better work, at Marvel or DC. I can do it myself (Chris Bachalo, Paolo Rivera, Chris Samnee, Jerome Opena and Nick Bradshaw, sole DC vote for Cliff Wu Chiang on Wonder Woman), but I'm curious. And do you pick the old farts, or are some of you actually fans of newer guys, you know, who draw backgrounds, ink/colour their own stuff

-I also think Manapul is one of the most talented comic book artists working, and his work on Legion was beautiful, though perhaps he did employ too much artistic license.–

And as I've said, and, is infact, the crux of the point I'm trying to argue, that would be fine, but, it does not give the writer the right to go bleating off to a website about how little he thinks of the artist. Shooter, and this the point that none of you sycophants can accept – came off as a bullying scumbag, for going public like that, when the issue, should have been kept between Shooter, and his editor. Its not the 80s anymore. Shooter is not an editor.

Here's a funny story that I read recently. Years ago, Warren Ellis, a writer known for his exceptional levels of collaboration, who turns down/accepts work based on wether or not he can pick his artist, told the story of his first Marvel work, the DOOM 2099 book, or some other fluff. He was working with an artist named Pat Broderick, and Ellis wrote his first script, and sent it off, and Ellis got the art back to review, and whet he wrote, and what Broderick drew, were two different things. This isn't the size of rocks, or going outside a grid layout, this was, the script being one thing, and the art being another. Ellis contacted Broderick, who, allegedly, told Ellis, he didn't like the script, and drew what he felt was better, and if he didn't like it, he could quit. This being before CBR, and Jim Shooter proclaiming himself the Artist Hater, Ellis went back to his editor, who found out, or knew, that Broderick had pulled this shit before, and the writers were too intimidated to say anything. Ellis, not giving two shits about the gig, pursued it, and Broderick was fired from the book. Broderick alleges that he's been blackballed from the industry since.

ja

Ash,

I agree with you about the quality of Manapul's work, and that he perhaps did employ too much 'artistic license'. No evil going on here, but Dave O'Neill does nothing but characterize Shooter as being evil.

If you had bothered to actually read the tedious conversation, you'd see that Dave is the one who came into this comments section in a hateful insulting way, and has refused to calm down and simply have a conversation, even and especially when people here have gone out of their way to make cogent points to him in hopes of an exchange of ideas.

He wouldn't be bothered with having an actual conversation. He would just blast Shooter in an openly demeaning way, falsely ascribing motivations onto Shooter based solely upon assumption and conjecture.

He's been asked to calm down and just have an actual reasonable conversation instead of being openly hostile, but he would ultimately respond by writing, "Why do it? Because I can. …if anyone is offended by stuff I say, its probably because I tend to write when I'm exhausted."

So he admits that he's being a hostile jerk because 'he can', and then adds the lame excuse that "if anyone is offended by stuff I say, it[']s probably because I tend to write when I'm exhausted." He was being a purposeful asshole because it suits him. His bullshit excuse for his behavior shows how dishonest he is.

If Dave showed up to speak to you and immediately started spewing false accusations and aspersions about something you said (when you didn't say it), then you would see him as an aggressive jerk. And you'd be right to push back on him, and you know it.

Anonymous

He's afraid of me. I guess responding to actual points was too hard. Just keep distorting facts and issues under discussion, Dave. That's right, because a rock was too small Jim Shooter tried to destroy a career. Are you just pretending to be this stupid or are you really that moronic? Well, we're still waiting on your argument and supporting evidence. Kneejerk emotional responses don't count, sad to say.

Anonymous

Cannot be bothered reading the tedious conversation, but I'm taking Dave's side since he seems to be less inclined to stooping to personal insults. Hey, I like Shooter and his opinions when he decides to post them. I also think Manapul is one of the most talented comic book artists working, and his work on Legion was beautiful, though perhaps he did employ too much artistic license. In other words, you're all right, you just can't manage to express that without looking like jerks.

Anonymous

Anonymous

@Dave admits he likes it when Jim criticizes Batman – and thereby Dave proves once again what a pea-brained hypocrite he is

Dave, I think Jesus would weep if you ever had one original thought in your life. You suck the air out of this blog. Many people who post here actually have something intelligent to say, which sets this blog apart from every message board and comic book site I have ever been to. But your "contributions" to the discussions here remind me of what it is like to try to have an informed discussion on Internet message boards

There are hoards of you out there Dave – people who are incapable of putting their thumb on what makes good comics and what doesn't, and who are baffled by those who can

Your responses are the same as all of those other clueless comic-readers, you want to argue until the sun burns out with people who actually make cogent points when they post things online – probably why you hate Shooter too

–Manapul isn't good at storytelling. And his rendering is VERY beneath my standards.–

Rob Liefeld has control over three books at DC, but is Manapaul's storytelling that bothers you? Get a new hobby.

-Dave, you would agree that the amount of damage done by a small rock and a large boulder would be considerable.–

It's a comic. Set in outer space.

–"Dave, we all get it that you don't like Jim Shooter"–

I've never actually said that. I, like, most right thinking comic fans, own, and love Secret Wars (I actually own two copies), and some of the Valiant stuff is tolerable, during a time when I wasn't really into Marvel.

What I don't like, especially as someone with my own creative ideas, is someone who WAS a name, completely shutting down and bashing a talent, for what? The size of a rock? He drew a screen differently? Get real. Manapaul is light years ahead of most of the guys in DC, doesn't even NEED comics, because of the tv gig, but LOVE comics, loves DC, pours his heart into Flash, but no, the sycophant brigade here decides to bash the run into the ground because he didn't draw the right rocks for Big Jim. Why do it? Because I can. Because its a moderatly fun diversion from my jobs (I work two), in fact if anyone is offended by stuff I say, its probably because I tend to write when I'm exhausted. I only got half into it when Shooter took Batman apart, because I think Snyder is overrated, and Capullo is a terrible artist anyway. As for Wonder Woman, I could care less, because most of the critics of the run are either a)offended by Brain Azzrello doing a superhero bookb)too stupid to understand the storyI got into it here, because Manapaul is a genuine talent, and if none of you can accept that, just because the Almighty Shooter hates him and tried to ruin his career, well, I feel sad.

In fact, the problem with this blog is, unlike a messageboard, I can't be banned. I'd LOVE for someone to threaten me with a ban, because it proves you're not interested in discussion, or Free Speech.

I did get banned from John Byrne's board, actually (not difficult)

If you want a DISCUSSION, I'm you're guy, As long as you're not Zemo, and remember you're speaking to an adult here, who works in a comic store.

Dan

Anonymous

Y'know, this is getting kind of boring. What, with one side throwing insults at the other and then receiving other insults (or,more likely, the same insults) back again.

First off, as has been said in other places, why don't the readers of this blog just ignore the unsubstantiated, screeds and use your time more profitably? He'll go away soon enough.

So saying, I will ignore my own advice.

Dave, we all get it that you don't like Jim Shooter. My comment to you is why bother? Is this such an important issue in your life that you wish to spew diatribe after diatribe at the readers of this blog over it? I happen to agree with some of your points – that Shooter should ideally take up his issues with the editor, not with the artist. However, if a writer is stuck with an artist who serially fails to tell the story but rather continues to follow his own agenda by ignoring key elements of the script, and who latterly (as he admitted) just did what felt good to him, this is damaging to the writer in two ways. The writer then has to work around the inconsistencies in the script, taking up time and effort that he may not be able to afford. Also, the writer may gain a reputation for poor storytelling from the public who do not know the background to the situation.

The size of a rock (among other factors) has been cited here as being one point of contention. Dave, you would agree that the amount of damage done by a small rock and a large boulder would be considerable. If a key plot point is sabotaged by the incorrect depiction of said rock/boulder, then the artist is at least partially to blame, but I reiterate my earlier comment, it should have been the editor who solved the problem.

Dave, if you want a reasoned discussion, tone down your language. If you reply to this comment with a barrage of slurs and innuendos, etc., you will just be ignored. See my usual policy above.

ja

Dave James O'Neill, you're so silly.

"That's the EDITOR[']S problem, not Shooter[']s." Actually, it's everyone's responsibility. The writer goes back and forth with the editor to work out a story, the script is written, then the approved script is sent to the artist. Copies of the artwork is usually sent back to the writer. EVERY WRITER checks the artwork for inconsistencies to the script.

If Jim (or any writer) specifically indicates the size of an object to be placed into the visuals, it is for a reason. So if the rock in question was indicated to be big, then it should have been big.

The people who comment on this blog aren't sycophants. Many of us disagree with certain things that Shooter does, and we've stated so.

But, you're not here for any kind of intelligent exchange of ideas. The only reason you've been here from the start is to bash Shooter relentlessly with your false premise that he's a Big Old Meanie. You being the biggest sycophant of all with your Manapul-fellatio just goes to show how much of a hypocrite you truly are.

–I also like how you think an artist drawing what is carefully detailed in the script is an "impossibly high standard"–

If you're going to quibble over the size of a rock on a page, then you have ridiculously high standards, and in Shooters case, wanted the artist to fail so you could complain about him.

–The subject at hand has always been about Manapul's work in regards to how an artist should reflect the script written, not how well he can draw. My initial memory of Jim's complaints about Manapul's work had to do with details Manapul left out, that Jim indicated in his Legion script(s)–

Thats the EDITORS problem, not Shooters.

–There seems to be several possibilities: Manapul did this on his own, and the Editor supported him by not making him adhere to storytelling details; or the Editor told Manapul to edit the script any way he wished. Either way, it was the Editor who is at fault. The Editor should have managed Manapul to keep to the details, because he's the one who approved the script in the first place.–

So why did Shooter not attack the editor, and instead tried to kill Manapaul's career?

ja

I take each illustrator individually when it comes to their work. Some people work very well within the 6-panel grid format. Others wish to make things more kinetic with how they draw panel frames. There's such a broad spectrum of good storytelling, and I love being entertained by good storytelling, no matter how it's delivered to me.

So beyond Defiant1's dislike for anything 'anime'-looking, or Dave James O'Neill being a malicious bullying lying asshole who gets things totally wrong by ascribing false motivations onto Shooter when he knows better, the subject at hand is Manapul deciding what he can do with Shooter's script. Whether or not he can unilaterally edit out details that were written in.

There seems to be several possibilities: Manapul did this on his own, and the Editor supported him by not making him adhere to storytelling details; or the Editor told Manapul to edit the script any way he wished. Either way, it was the Editor who is at fault. The Editor should have managed Manapul to keep to the details, because he's the one who approved the script in the first place.

Dave James O'Neill has finally admitted that Jim Shooter's standards are high ones! One small step for Dave James O'Neill, one big step for repentant assholes everywhere.

ja

It's not a good example of good or bad storytelling when you show a single double-page spread illustration like Anonymous just did, using Dave James O'Neill's link.

Manapul's drawing is fine, in my opinion. Very dynamic, quite well drawn. Very attractive work! It makes me like Manapul's work, and I want to see more.

The subject at hand has always been about Manapul's work in regards to how an artist should reflect the script written, not how well he can draw. My initial memory of Jim's complaints about Manapul's work had to do with details Manapul left out, that Jim indicated in his Legion script(s). That's what I choose to focus on.

I don't have a problem with someone not adhering to the rigid 6-panel comic book page grid, so long as their storytelling is still readable. 'Readable' is certainly a subjective thing. I for one have enjoyed people like Walt Simonson, Neal Adams, Joe Quesada, Jim Lee & many other artists' work who tend to deviate from the plain 6-panel grid format. These are all people who have no problems using the 6-panel grid format, either. SO LONG AS IT'S READABLE should be the standard for visual storytelling and pacing.

'Readable' is also maintaining important details that were written into the script. When the script is handed to the artist, that means that the script was approved by the Editor. Manapul leaving out details of Shooter's script is not the same thing as Manapul deciding on his own course of visually pacing the script while keeping to the details in the script. This is a very important distinction.

Anonymous

@David said

"Ja, I'm simply astonished you don't think Manapaul is, in your words "good at his job". Please click on the link, and tell me, why the image included doesn't fit the high standards of a Jim Shooter fan

There is great irony in David posting this as a good example of Manpaul's artwork. For one, it is exactly symptomatic of today's artists drawing posters instead of comic covers that convey information about the STORY inside. Furthermore, it's just plain confusing as an image. Is Flash supposed to be running on water? And pulling those ships?? It looks like he might be on water – but there are also some rocks and a building in the near background. I suppose those letters at the bottom could be some kind of icebergs?? I suppose he could be in the arctic, pulling tub boats?? Who knows – as long as it is kewl, right??

Thanks for providing exhibit A for what is wrong with a lot of current comic book artists

BTW, I have a slightly different account of the collaboration Jim had with Francis Manapul. They story I've been told hasn't really surfaced and I'll leave it that way. Jim's online comments in no way contradict the "rest of the story". I think Jim did the best he could with the cards he was handed.

Manapul draws in a cartoon Manga style. Most of it is horrid. Some panels he did for Legion are drawn in a cartoon style that could have been plugged into a "For Better or Worse" newspaper cartoon. It's completelt beneath the standards of what I want to see. I'm not familiar with all the Legion characters, so Manapul drawing so many of them alike required me to flip pages back and forth to see who was talking. I found his art to be annoying. Since most of the art spit out by Marvel & DC is shit these days, having his name on a top DC book means nothing to me. I seriously doubt Manapul was following the script or even had a clue as to why the details were so specific. At one point in the legion run, the difference between a desolate palace and a lavish one was throw pillows and lit torches. I'll steer clear of any comic with Manapul's art. On the other hand, I saw some panels that looked very nice. They were few and far between.

Calero was reportedly on vacation while one of his issues was being drawn. A noir style of art is entirely inadequate for panels that require the illustration of a nuclear reactor and 3D projected images. His art would've been fine if the story had been suited for a noir art style.

The Dark Horse material just looked like they produced the cheapest art they could. rather than hire capable inkers to clean things up, they left it all looking very sketchy and rough. Solar looked like it was inked with a sharpie and finished in photoshop. Again, none of it meets my standards.

Anonymous

another lie from Dave James. No one has refused to recognize Manapaul's talent, not Jim Shooter nor anyone posting. I seriously believe you need a remedial course in reading comprehension.

Can you refrain from lying and please make a point with convincing evidence? Too hard, huh? Easier by far to spew venom for perceived slights that even the person you think was slighted apparently had no problem with.

Man, you are really operating at a kneejerk emotional level like I would expect from my 2-year-old. Except he's better at communicating than you are.

Anonymous

Anonymous

so Jim's criticism is valid when you agree with it, but invalid when you don't. confirmation bias at its worst. what an idiot. the saddest part is you probably think you're smart. dumb asses usually do.

and what a hardon you have for manapaul. the artist who could never under any circumstances be wrong or learn or improve in any way. i bet manapaul would agree that he's still learning his craft and hopes to get better in time. any artist who isn't a total ass (like you are) knows there's always room for improvement.

Anonymous

@David said

"no major company will touch Shooter"

Nope. The big 2 won't touch Shooter because there are still people working there that will cry a river and sit in a corner, intentionally soiling themselves in dismay, daily, if the guys in charge hire Shooter

Anonymous

It IS garbage..and copied from he likes of Miller, McFarlane, bad Wrightson(Cult) JR Jr, and now even Paul Smith. Greggy is the lord of the light box and Thethe Sultan Of swipes which, of course, he denies. Nice to see someone else acknowledging that the emperor has no clothes but he DOES have tracing paper.

Anonymous

I can summarize things like this: David has criticized Jim, and his sycophants – yet has not been able to provide one logical reason or piece of evidence for his beliefs.

By the by – thanks for providing the Manpaul quotes. A guy ignores specific details (such as the size of rocks) and even thumbnails that Jim drew for him – then he chalks it up to miscommunication – what a bullshitter

Anonymous

The twit continues…if you altered my script because you were lazy or self-indulgent, you're not a storyteller, you're just drawing pictures to please yourself.

yes we all hate Manapaul is the correct conclusion to draw, you double-dumb ass.

You couldn't make a bigger fool of yourself if you tried, Dave James. You have to be a maroon of unique maroonishness not to be able to parse words at all, which you clearly cannot do. All your conclusions are utterly unfounded, you have yet to provide any support for your nutty, muddy misinterpretations. You are living under a veil of miscomprehension that you believe to be insight, and it would be laughable if not for the fact that it's really quite sad. You have nothing better to do than spew venomous lies about and at Jim Shooter based solely on your bizarre misunderstanding of what criticism is and what it is for. I can only assume you were equally disgusted in school when you received your deluge of Fs and your teachers dared to imply you did not know all.

If you hate Jim so much, why read his blog? Clearly you're not interested in learning anything or getting honest opinions and, good Lord!, criticism. I've met you under other names but you're always the same: rude, misinformed, quick to take offense, hypocritical, and unable to support your positions. Please go away. Take your 70,000 (what a joke) Flash comics with you.

Marvelman

David,

Whether anyone here agrees with you or not…

Jim is persona non grata at both Marvel and DC. I doubt there is anything he could say that would impact any creator's career one way or the other. I'm not saying this to mean to Jim, but it is probably the truth.

-I think this latest issue of Daredevil is a step backwards, Khoi Pham is not an artist at the level of Marcos Martin, Paulo Rivera and Chris Samnee, and his inexperience and lack of talent, comparative to the other guys currently on Daredevil rotation comes through, comes through in this week's issue, compared to the high watermark of Chris Samnee on the last issue, which I really loved.–

Thats an OPINION. Mine, as it happens. Jim Shooter similarily took apart Francis Manapaul's work (as a sidenote, I think we've done all we can with Manapaul since its obvious none of you actually like him, let's not forget Shooter had Dennis Calero booted off the Solar relaunch aswell). Now, the difference is, that one of us used a blog read by a few people, and the other used a website with a global reach. One of us is a professional writer.

If there was "constructive criticism" to be laid at Manapaul's feet, that is a job for his EDITOR. For instance, Steve Wacker took on early criticism of Khoi Pham's pervious Marvell work, and Pham, at Wacker's request, taken on Tom Palmer as his inker and embellisher. Thats because that's an editor's job. Jim Shooter, is not an editor, and it is not his job to try and wreck a young artists career.

–I think Dave James O'Neill – who again should be commended for writing under his full name, at least – is not consciously being a troll. I think he's genuinely upset about Jim Shooter and what he perceives as Jim's unwarranted criticism of some of his favourite creators.–

I thought that was quite civil and well written.

–Regarding Francis Mannapul in particular, Jim has spoken favourably about him earlier too, despite the problems. Previously quoted in this thread, but I'll do it again:

“I must add that Francis Manapul is going to be great someday – maybe one of the best of all time. He already shows flashes of brilliance. He works very hard and seems to care a lot – but that and a $1.85 gets you a cup of coffee. As soon as Francis groks what business he’s in – storytelling – as soon as he realizes that conveying the story and information clearly, at a glance, is first priority, he’ll be a contender. It’s not just about making cool shots that vaguely relate to what was asked for in the script. It’s about thinking things through until you can come up with just-as-cool shots that effectively deliver all the content required; about making the visual storytelling ‘read’ effortlessly. Francis is incapable of drawing a dull picture, so if he ever really grasps the importance of the story and science of storytelling, he’s going to be a hall-of-famer. —

You see, you call that favourable, but where does ANYONE, ex-editor, old school writer, whatever, get off, saying that an artist, who had been working in the biz for a few years now (look, Top Cow is crap, but its still experience) hadn't "grasped the importance of story and the science of storytelling". How dare he.

–“Anyway, upon reading the interview, I wonder now if people will focus on the things I said regarding Francis like he’s ‘going to be great someday, maybe one of the best of all time,’ —

Ok, look, Jim, you don't like the guy, but you're trying to promote a book! You want people to read it! Why aren't you more enthusiastic about it. I don't care who you're working with, any collaboration , you have to praise the other guy, not say he'll be great " some day"

–And his abuse of Manapaul was digusting. And the funny thing is, I bet we're going to see the same thing again, as DC have given Tom DeFalco the Superboy book, and he's going to pick away at RB Silva's amazing work, until DC cave in and give DeFalco's boyfriend Ron Frenz the gig.

Hm. "Extremely unfair, and extraordinarily rude"?–

What I think of Shooter is polite compared to what I think of Tommy DeFalco

Mannapul's attitude is quite a bit different from Dave James O'Neill's tone of voice:

Anyway, here's some of [Shooter's] abuse [of Mannapul]—if he ever really grasps the importance of the story and science of storytelling, he’s going to be a hall-of-famer.— (…)

If I was an artist, I'd be disgusted to hear that, from a former editor

I'm very glad that DJO'N is not an artist. Being told that with a bit more work you'll be a hall-of-famer, and your reaction is disgust? But, as DJO'N admits, "Your definition of abuse definitely differs from mine." Uh, yes, it differs from most people's, obviously.

Dave James O'Neill certianly does not lead by example. He does everything he tells Shooter and others not to, concentrating on insulting anyone who doesn't share his views, leaping to unlikely conclusions and is unable or unwilling to back up his statements with any actual arguments. And then he says that some comments directed towards him are "extremely unfair, and extraordinarily rude." Funny.

Fact is this, hiding behind a tag of "I don't know them, so they suck", Shooter has criticised comics I like. His essays about Wonder Woman are openly mocked on other messageboards, because people know full well Shooter is mocking stuff he doesn't understand, and isn't taking the time to read properly.

I wonder who it is that don't understand? No, I don't really.

And his abuse of Manapaul was digusting. And the funny thing is, I bet we're going to see the same thing again, as DC have given Tom DeFalco the Superboy book, and he's going to pick away at RB Silva's amazing work, until DC cave in and give DeFalco's boyfriend Ron Frenz the gig.

Hm. "Extremely unfair, and extraordinarily rude"?

My increasing suspicion is that the decent editors at DC were horrified that this old fart thought he could push around a young artist, and leaked it. Thats what I would have done anyway.

That's good to know.

The question is, would Shooter be polite to me, if I asked whey he is so determined to shit on young creators.

You know, I think he probably would! Would you deserve it?

Alan Moore? Some people are just crazy.

I can name some people who are a lot more crazy than Alan Moore.

Eventually we get full circle, back to what ja wrote initially:

Dave James O'Neill, you're a hateful son of a bitch. It must be nice to sit on your perch and throw complete falsehoods around, just so you can pretend you have something clever to say.

…which happens to seem very fitting.

P.S. Comparing "The Flash"'s dismal sales in the 70,000 copies region with even more laughable sales of a special interest title from Dark Horse Comics does little but indicate that you (both DJO'N and Anonymous) have missed the point completely. An illustration: Sales of 70,000 copies of a comic book would be quite good here in Norway. Not the top selling title, but decent sales. We are a population of five million people. That's about 14,000 copies per million people. The USA has a population of about 313.5 million. Guess how I arrived at the figure "4,389,000"…?

Regarding Francis Mannapul in particular, Jim has spoken favourably about him earlier too, despite the problems. Previously quoted in this thread, but I'll do it again:

“I must add that Francis Manapul is going to be great someday – maybe one of the best of all time. He already shows flashes of brilliance. He works very hard and seems to care a lot – but that and a $1.85 gets you a cup of coffee. As soon as Francis groks what business he’s in – storytelling – as soon as he realizes that conveying the story and information clearly, at a glance, is first priority, he’ll be a contender. It’s not just about making cool shots that vaguely relate to what was asked for in the script. It’s about thinking things through until you can come up with just-as-cool shots that effectively deliver all the content required; about making the visual storytelling ‘read’ effortlessly. Francis is incapable of drawing a dull picture, so if he ever really grasps the importance of the story and science of storytelling, he’s going to be a hall-of-famer.

“That’s not easy, by the way. Even Frank Miller struggled with storytelling for a while – but once he grokked — wow.”

That article was followed by another, in which Shooter is quoted as follows:

“I am, of course, famous for my lack of ‘people skills,’” Shooter said. “Things I say, apparently, are sometimes taken more harshly than intended. To me, it seems that I say ‘hello’ and people say, ‘What did he mean by that nasty remark?’ But, at this point in my life, I'm willing to believe that I sound upset when I’m not.

“Anyway, upon reading the interview, I wonder now if people will focus on the things I said regarding Francis like he’s ‘going to be great someday, maybe one of the best of all time,’ ‘great designer,’ ‘incapable of drawing a dull picture,’ etc. or just think that I’m blaming him for the book’s demise. Read it again. I blame me.

“My run on ‘Legion’ wasn’t everything that I had hoped for, but I probably got better than I deserved from Francis. Francis is already very, very good — outstanding, in fact — and as editor Mike Marts and I have both observed, he gets better and better as he goes. He will soon hurdle the few remaining barriers in his way and become an all-pro/MVP. Maybe working with someone else, maybe with better scripts to work from, he’ll get there faster.”

Francis Mannapul, in his answers to the criticism, definitely says that he wasn't having much fun during the experience, but he also says:

There really was a breakdown in communication on the book which I think is the main culprit for these problems. I definitely feel for Jim on this. I know how frustrating it must be to have your intent misinterpreted, or overlooked.

Regarding his storytelling critiques, I guess it’s just creative differences. I’ve worked with many writers, who compliment me on my storytelling as much as the way it looks. I don’t think it’s by accident, that I’m now writing and drawing a book. I guess when we were first paired up, it was probably thought “traditional stories, visually told in a modern way”. I think that’s how it should have been. But that wasn’t the case. I didn’t mind changing for him, I really do feel that my job is to tell a story first. However I didn’t agree on his method, or his pacing. I was a circle trying to fit in a square.

I wish no ill will to Jim, and believe he has the right to say what he wants. I just thought I’d temper his voice with a bit of what the experience was like on the other side. And it definitely was quite an experience.

I think Dave James O'Neill – who again should be commended for writing under his full name, at least – is not consciously being a troll. I think he's genuinely upset about Jim Shooter and what he perceives as Jim's unwarranted criticism of some of his favourite creators. However, the ways he goes about "arguing" his points makes his posts little more constructive than those of the anonymous trolls. As long as his posts continue to mainly consist of insults, accusations, presumptions, rash conclusions and basically doing everything he accuses his "opposition" of doing, I personally will be awarding him the same amount of attention that I have given the anonymice pests over the past few months, mainly noticing that they're still here as I scroll past.

Just a couple of things I'd like to get off my chest first:

I said: "One of the main points behind all this is that while many of us here tend to prefer "classic", "old fashioned" comic book storytelling,", to which DJO'N replied: "Thats [sic] speculation."

Uh. Yeah. I guess. Sort of. However, I must admit that I considered it a fairly safe bet that the preferances of "many" both active, semi-active and just lurking participants on a Jim Shooter blog will tend to lean somewhat towards Jim Shooter's style of storytelling. Sure thing, some will be here just to pick a fight. Some will disagree with Shooter, I'm sure, but still enjoy intelligent debates with, and around, a comic industry veteran. Some will like both "classic" and "modern" types of comics with no clear personal preferance. And finally, I speculate that "many" will tend to prefer Jim Shooter's style of "classic" comic book storytelling.

Frankly, I didn't expect to be attacked because of THAT remark… But never mind!

Regarding Jim Shooter's reviews here on his blog and his other comments here and elsewhere:

I think Jim Shooter has earned his right to be honest and speak his mind. That said, his reviews here have always been respectful of the creators and based on constructive criticism – his "editor mode", I suspect. It points out problems in the storytelling aspect of the comics he reviews, as well as pointing it out when it's being done right. Rather than trying to "wreck young creators' careers", young creators would be advised to pay attention – they could learn a lot.

The only case I can remember when it might be argued that Shooter strayed from simply professional constructive criticism is when he added a comment that Brian Michael Bendis had "phoned in" the script to Ultimate Comics Spider-Man #1. He apologised for that.

I think Jim Shooter should also be allowed to speak his mind about problems with artists he's worked with. When you write a script, the script is approved by your editor, and the artwork strays considerably from the approved script, I think you have a right to be a bit annoyed.

–Francis Manapaul's response to Jim seems pretty benign. He doesn't say he's offended, or feels abused or insulted. He basically chalks it up to miscommunication in some cases and a creative difference of opinion in others: —

Maybe thats the difference between me and Manapaul. If I got a giant letter from Shooter listing my perceived flaws, I'd be pretty bloody offended. Personally, if I was in Manapaul's shoes, I'd have withheld my work until Shooter apologised, and I'm curious how DC would have dealt with it.

ja

–That's probably because you're a bullying pussy. You can choose not to be. If suddenly you were to be a rational, non-abusive person, you'd get a whole lot more constructive communication here. —

You mean, if I became a sycophant demanding Marvel made all their comics patronising and suitable for brats, while praising Jim Shooter and the old fart crew out the yin yang?, while all the while criticising any artist who dared draw a visually interesting script?

–That you have no one of significance in your life speaks volumes.–

No it doesnt, it has no bearing on my life at all. I was in a relationship for three years and I was miserable, for a good portion of that. Being single, I've been able to travel, which is my great passion, I've pursued job opportunities my ex was against (as it would move me away from her sphere of influence), and, crucially, it kept me away from the housing market (what ended out relationship was my girlfriend's over eagerness to move in together, which I resisted)

My belief is that Shooter would have attacked any artist DC gave him, simply because they're not one of his mates. I bet it kills Shooter that Paul Levitz, currently driving the Legion books into the ground, gets Steve Lightle and Keith Giffen, yet poor old Shooter had to deal with the foreigner who didnt understand his scripts

That was a joke, by the way.

Furthermore, my belief in artists is one of the reasons I don't read a lot of DC books, very few of them are visually interesting. I found Shooter's reviews of Batman interesting, mainly because I think the Batman books are awful right now. (You see, sometimes I agree with the almighty Shooter).

I'm down to… one (Flash, ). I'm loathe to pick up Superboy knowing Tom DeFalco is writing it, and I just know there'll be the same Shooter/Manapaul issues with RB Silva, who's an incredibly kinetic artist, and DeFalco's scripts are cringe inducing

Anonymous

Dave,

Francis Manapaul's response to Jim seems pretty benign. He doesn't say he's offended, or feels abused or insulted. He basically chalks it up to miscommunication in some cases and a creative difference of opinion in others:

"Regarding his storytelling critiques, I guess it’s just creative differences. I’ve worked with many writers, who compliment me on my storytelling as much as the way it looks. I don’t think it’s by accident, that I’m now writing and drawing a book. I guess when we were first paired up, it was probably thought 'traditional stories, visually told in a modern way'. I think that’s how it should have been. But that wasn’t the case. I didn’t mind changing for him, I really do feel that my job is to tell a story first. However I didn’t agree on his method, or his pacing. I was a circle trying to fit in a square.

"I wish no ill will to Jim, and believe he has the right to say what he wants. I just thought I’d temper his voice with a bit of what the experience was like on the other side. And it definitely was quite an experience."

There's no reason to think Jim could or wants to "ruin Francis Manapaul's career," and there's no reason to think Manapaul thinks that either. When a project doesn't go right, usually no one is happy, and that seems to be the case here. It happens, and everyone moves on.

ja

"I've been reading Daredevil since I was fifteen years, you piece of garbage."

"Again, have any of you assholes actually listened to Manapul's side of the story?"

Interesting that you set the standard for being an asshole, and yet when you've been debunked again and again, you come back at us by being even more of an asshole? Awesome.

If you had any points to make, it's been very obvious from the start that you don't have the ability to make them in a civil manner. You show yourself again and again as being the hateful ignorant guy who can't communicate with anyone without being a malicious creep. Beyond that, you show yourself as being incapable of rationally understanding Jim Shooter's point of view. You'd just rather make ignorant presumptions based upon no actual research of Jim's point of view in various places in this blog.

The artwork on Dark Horse's Magnus Robot Fighter wasn't all that great. It just laid there like a narcoleptic collection of linework that had no life to it. Decently drawn, but it didn't really have excitement or dynamic quality to it. I would think that the work deserved to have critical notes applied to it.

Certainly if you ever did any kind of a creative job, you would definitely have to deal with criticism. I'm a freelance guy, and I constantly have to. You do your best, and at the end of a job, you should be humble enough to admit where you might not have done things as well as you'd liked.

Just because you draw pictures for a living, doesn't mean your work shouldn't be criticized. Especially if you choose to unilaterally change things in an approved script that was handed to you, resulting in storytelling glitches. Artists adjust the storytelling from scripts all the time, but the good ones are able to keep all the same information and dialog that was in the script. They shouldn't just omit whatever they wish from the script.

"If Jim Shooter told me, to my face, why he was so determined to ruin Francis Manapul's career, I'd at least have the decency to hear him out."

Actually, you have no decency at all. Any decent person would not automatically presume that Shooter is trying to ruin anyone's career. That's a bullshit premise. Any judicious person would try to understand why Jim Shooter complained about Manapul's work without automatically assuming evil intent. Jim Shooter has a great work standard that certainly seems to fly in the face of what a lot of today's illustrators are used to.

Your automatic presumption of evil intent on Shooter's part is not only ignorant, it's not honest. The funny part is that we all know you don't care that you're dishonest about this. You revel in it.

This is why I'm right about you: you bluster here in a comments section, but just like with Dan Slott, when you're face to face with someone, suddenly you speak to that person in a civil manner. This only bolsters my belief that you're just an abusive asshole to people (girlfriend, wife & kids probably) only when you feel you can get away with it.

You're just another bullying pussy.

It just shows again that you don't have the capacity to express your concerns and ideas without being a malicious asswipe. What a shock.

–It never occurred to you that Shooter's notes could have any merit, clearly. You're so full of shit it's coming out your ears. Get off the artist's jock and compare script to art and see if the job was performed. It wasn't. End of story,–

I can't fault a talented artist for trying to make a boring and rigid script more visually interesting.

Anonymous

It never occurred to you that Shooter's notes could have any merit, clearly. You're so full of shit it's coming out your ears. Get off the artist's jock and compare script to art and see if the job was performed. It wasn't. End of story, Dave James. Cry me a river for your depreciating-value collection of shitty Marvel nu-comics.

–Dave James is buying Daredevil because he was told it's "hot." He doesn't decide these things on his own–

I've been reading Daredevil since I was fifteen years, you piece of garbage.

–What, when you got to Dan Slott's face, you lost your nerve to be the same shit-spewing, malicious asshole you are being here in this comments section?–

If Jim Shooter told me, to my face, why he was so determined to ruin Francis Manapaul's career, I'd at least have the decency to hear him out.

Again, have any of you assholes actually listened to Manapaul's side of the story? I met one of the artists who worked on the Dark Horse relaunch (MRF, to be exact), and he showed me the notes Shooter had sent him regarding his art, I was digusted. Everything he did was criticised, nothing was good enough for the almighty Shooter.

Anonymous

Dave James is buying Daredevil because he was told it's "hot." He doesn't decide these things on his own; that would require critical thinking and all criticism is inherently bad…unless done by Dave James.

On the second page of DD#11 we do get a bit of expository stuff, but it's very brief and not too badly done. I would still like to see Waid move away from these "Daily Bugle" crutch pages, but in any case this one very quickly tells me the rest of what I need to know to orient myself in this story. For instance, I learn who the members of "Megacrime" are, and I also learn about the story's MacGuffin, the "Omega Drive." Everyone wants it, Daredevil has it. And I now have all I need to follow the rest of the story.

Third page, narration from Daredevil: "Even blind, I can see tomorrow's headline." So now I know he's blind (this info is also in the page 2 exposition, but this is a great example of how that part of the exposition wasn't needed). The page is drawn weird, in a way that doesn't make sense to "new reader" me. The narration suggests it's from DD's perspective, which further suggests that, if he's blind, he can still "see" somehow. "New reader" me may be unsure how this works, but that's a little mystery I imagine I'll figure out eventually. For now I simply know that DD is able to function with something similar to sight.

And so on and so on. Page seven, DD talks about following Cole's scent. Clearly he has enhanced smell. In other words, the way the story at this point is told provides me with new info about DD, but no exposition is required. And it's not info I needed until now — i.e., I'm given what I need when I need it.

Later I learn that the Punisher does what he does because "bad guys" murdered his wife and kids, and that (presumably different) "bad guys" also killed DD's father. This is all part of the redemption/etc. theme that Waid works out in the conversation between DD and Cole. So narratively he brings the whole thing (i.e., the beginning and end of the comic) together very nicely, both plot-wise and ideas-wise.

One chapter of a three-part story, told so that someone — whether new reader or old — could clearly follow it without having yet read the other two parts. And also told in a way that an old reader would not be annoyed/burdened with unnecessary exposition.

This is exactly the kind of "every issue should be a jumping on point" storytelling that Shooter keeps talking about.

Well, if DJO'N likes Waid's Daredevil but *doesn't* like being told things about a comic book that he already knows, he is perhaps a bit confused. (Some of you already suspect this, but please bear with me. You too, DJ.)

Which is to say, Waid does in fact provide all of the information that a first-time reader would need to make this a "jumping off point" for a new reader. Something that DJ says he detests. Or to quote the sage one himself: "Its not my first [comic], I already know who the characters are, and I don't need to be patronisingly beat around the head with exposition."

But if he'd been paying attention to Jim Shooter, he would have noticed Jim say (repeatedly) that providing necessary information is not about intrusive exposition. You do it so that it's not noticed. This is why writing (anything) is a CRAFT. Any idiot can put together a caption that reads: "This is Daredevil. He has enhanced senses, but otherwise is a mortal human. Also he is blind." Seeing that month after month would in fact get annoying.

Which is why good writers don't do that shit. But they still give you the information. (It's also why bad writers don't bother doing it at all — i.e., it takes work.) Why DJ can't understand this point — along with other simple ones about storytelling in art — is a bit of a mystery.

Here's an illustration using Waid's book.

I just pulled the first issue of DD that I saw out of a stack of unread books in my office. It's #11. It clearly takes place after other events I'm not familiar with, and after reading the letters page I learn that it's the last chapter of a three-part story. I have not read the other parts (which take place in other comics: Spider-Man and Punisher).

But I am not lost. Not for a second. Not just in terms of the story, but the characters.

I've been reading comics for almost 40 years but, trying out Jim's "new reader me" idea, I see that the opening page tells me exactly who the Punisher is. The very first box identifies him as Frank Castle, and in the next couple of panels I learn that he is comfortable executing criminals, and that this point of view is in opposition to Daredevil's.

So I know something important about both characters, something that in fact to an extent defines who they are. And this is a difference that matters to the MEANING of the story that follows, which — besides the basic plot bits — is about choices, suffering, redemption, etc. None of which would have made as much sense without the background info that Waid provides about both DD and Punisher. This is information that both I and DJ know already, but it is inserted into the comic very naturally. I at least did not find it annoying; I wonder what DJ thought?

ja

"–It's safe to say that if you were in person with Jim Shooter, you wouldn't be such a cowardly asshole as you're being with your keyboard.–

Try me. I'll stand in front of anyone. Hey, I even met Dan Slott, that I wasn't a fan of some of his work and had criticised his work noisily on a messageboard, and we had a good, funny chat, and both left with good grace. The question is, would Shooter be polite to me, if I asked whey he is so determined to shit on young creators."

You just revealed yourself as a hypocrite.

You admitted to being the same asshole to Dan Slott, and when you talked to him in person, you "had a good, funny chat, and both left with good grace." What, when you got to Dan Slott's face, you lost your nerve to be the same shit-spewing, malicious asshole you are being here in this comments section? Hypocrite.

I've met and dealt with Jim Shooter on a number of occasions. I've seen people be the kind of asshole you have been to his face, and he has always remained calm and polite. He's well-practiced at people feeling free to being a jerk to his face.

But like Dan Slott, if you actually conversed with him… communicated with him (here on this comments section) to understand another person's point of view without being the malicious asshole bully that you enjoy being (abuse your wife and kids much?), then maybe you'd actually learn something.

Anonymous

I remember this twit now. He (using the term loosely) is the one that doesn't want his panels cluttered with reference captions for the benefit of new readers. Are you so bitter at the world that you can't have just a little consideration for a kid trying to learn the characters?

I have a small litmus test–I've found that anyone who thinks something–music, movies, comic books–is the best of all time simply because it's the newest, is a small minded moron.

Are you dense, or something? Did you fall and hit your head? I have REPEATEDLY named comics I like, and admire, and you have summarily ignored them, because, in your addled little brain, if Jim "Turok" Shooter, didn't have a hand in them, obviously they suck.

Here's a list of EVERYTHING I bought this week. II bet you've never heard of any of the creators either

Anonymous

Ha – you did, once again, exactly what Zemo said. Instead of defending your own tastes, you lashed out against Shooter and his fans

By the by, I don't agree with a lot of what Shooter believes is quality work. I think he was too kind to Azzarello's new Wonder Woman. In addition to being confusing and logically flawed, it was also boring and filled with unlikable characters.

But that's just the thing – pick out a book I like, and I can put my finger on exactly what I think is good (and even bad) about it. And what's more, I don't get threatened when someone else dislikes it – because I know quality when I see it

Here's an idea – spend less time trolling blogs of people who you summarily dislike anyway, and more time evolving your ideas on what makes good comics. Hint: just because it sells and it's made by the big 2 does not mean it's good – come up with some of your own reasons

I've posted plenty of examples of what I consider good art, and god storytelling, but because you have your blinkers on, you refuse to accept artists unless they're old gits who worked on Valiant the first time around, utterly disrespectful of anyone who works for the current Big Two.

–It dawned on me yesterday that the name "Dave James O'Neill" rang a bell. This was the same guy who, during the time of the Wonder Woman reviews back in January, described Jonathan Hickman as something akin to a demigod who didn't "insult his audience", while Jim Shooter was presumed guilty until proven innocent (not that proof of his innocence would be sufficient, probably).–

That's Me!

–while Jim Shooter, that boring old fart, is doing the devil's work by reviewing some modern comic books and in a polite way pointing out what he feels are their strengths and weaknesses.–

First of all, it wasn't polite. Its not polite when Shooter is using his "reviews" to attack creators he doesn't like.

–One of the main points behind all this is that while many of us here tend to prefer "classic", "old fashioned" comic book storytelling,–

Thats speculation.

–It's safe to say that if you were in person with Jim Shooter, you wouldn't be such a cowardly asshole as you're being with your keyboard.–

Try me. I'll stand in front of anyone. Hey, I even met Dan Slott, that I wasn't a fan of some of his work and had criticised his work noisily on a messageboard, and we had a good, funny chat, and both left with good grace. The question is, would Shooter be polite to me, if I asked whey he is so determined to shit on young creators.

–By the by – I'd love to see a defense of Manpaul ignoring Jim's scripts – even when Jim drew specific thumbnail sketches for him. Where's the professionalism in that?

But I know, it's much easier to make attacks than to logically engage the points Jim brought up in his blog entry on Legion–

Pop quiz – how many of you sycophants had the decency to read Manapaul's side of the story?

-I guess Roy Thomas and Alan Moore must suck, too, since they aren't producing for Marvel or D.C. anymore-

Well, Roy Thomas does suck, because he famously ? Said he had never read an issue of Justice Society after he left the book, and considered everything done after he left, right up to Johns and Alex Ross on the book disrespectful to his work on the books

Alan Moore? Some people are just crazy. I'll go use my new Watchmen toaster

As for Byrne, sure, you want to waste half an issue re-introducing characters I already know, go ahead, waste my time. I absolutely reject this nonsensical "Every issue of a comic is someone's first". Its not my first, I already know who the characters are, and I don't need to be patronisingly beat around the head with exposition.

I happened upon John Byrne's site. On his Next Men… oops, sorry, I mean John Byrne's Next Men FAQ page, I found this (originally taken from a forum post, I think):

As I mentioned in another thread, the other day, one of the most destructive phrases that as worked its way into comic reading is "What's a good jumping on point?" Whole "generations" of potential readers have been scared away by the idea that there is no way to simply START READING, as I did lo these many years ago. And it certainly has not helped that far too many writers now THINK in terms of "jumping on points" — not in the sense that EVERY issue should be one, but that by throwing out a "jumping on point" every once in a while, they are free to ramble on with their lazy, undisciplined, "decompressed" stories.

These guys should be tossed into a time machine and sent back to 1956, where they would be forced to write "jumping on point" stories THREE TIMES PER ISSUE!!! Gun to their heads, I'll bet most of these wankers could not write an eight page, done in one story.

You know, I actually think there are still things that John Byrne and Jim Shooter would find they agree upon! 🙂

Anonymous

ja

Anonymous

I guess Roy Thomas and Alan Moore must suck, too, since they aren't producing for Marvel or D.C. anymore. Dave James is just trying to defend his shitty taste in comics by attacking creators who point out that what he apparently likes is, in fact, pretty crappy stuff. Dave, I don't give an eff if you think new Flash comics are awesome. Maybe they are, I haven't read 'em. But Wonder Woman written by you idol was sloppy shit. The fact that you are against any and all criticism of what you like merely shows that you have no confidence in your own taste (or you could defend it in ways other than lashing out at the critic) and that you are simultaneously a hypocrite. What an ass!

Allan

Since John Byrne would never be classy enough to do this I wanted to thank Jim Shooter on his behalf. John wouldn't have made this money without Jim as EiC at Marvel.

"Well, last week I received a royalty check from Marvel. As I opened the envelope, walking up my driveway from the mailbox, I was fully expecting to find one of the $35.76 "mystery checks" that turn up from time to time. I didn't. In fact the check I found was a lot more than that. Like close to a thousand times more!

And what was interesting was this was not an "accumulated" check, like the ones I sometimes get from DarkHorse after they've gone a few years "forgetting" to pay me my HELLBOY royalties. Nope, this check was almost entirely my share of the sales on the FF Omnibus that came out a while back. That big, thumping, $75 hardcover."

Anonymous

Marvelman said, "You don't bite the hand that feeds you"

What's the alternative, Marvelman? Do you take anything an employer does to you? For how long? Is there a limit, is there a breaking point for you? Do you have any personal code that says, "I won't let this line be crossed?" Jim does. I know people like Jim, who will sacrifice even their livelihood for his own personal code, are rare. And I've come to realize, after seeing comments about him, and about Alan Moore, online, that people like them are so are that some people, such as yourself, are so unaccustomed to the idea of people having their own personal code of ethics, that they denigrate those who do

The biggest problem when Jim is away is that the comments section tends to turn into off topic chaos. This time we managed to behave for quite a while before we fell off the wagon again.

ja said:

"@Ole M. Olsen: I do have good instincts."

I'll give you that! 😉

I try to always think well of people and give them the benefit of the doubt as long as there is any doubt left. Some times it might be argued that that's a waste of time, but I think I'll go on trying to be positive.

It dawned on me yesterday that the name "Dave James O'Neill" rang a bell. This was the same guy who, during the time of the Wonder Woman reviews back in January, described Jonathan Hickman as something akin to a demigod who didn't "insult his audience", while Jim Shooter was presumed guilty until proven innocent (not that proof of his innocence would be sufficient, probably).

I got a bit involved in that brawl myself at the time – I even unwisely used the word "troll". But like I said at the time:

"It seemed that Dave James O'Neill felt he should be allowed to spew out all derogatory and insulting comments he likes, while Jim Shooter, that boring old fart, is doing the devil's work by reviewing some modern comic books and in a polite way pointing out what he feels are their strengths and weaknesses. After all, it's a well known fact that Jim Shooter hates Marvel. And he's chummy with Mark Waid."

Obviously the situation hasn't changed much since then.

I'll give him one thing, though: He does have the courage to sign his comments with a name (presumably even his real one), and deserves praise for that! I don't even bother to read most anonymice's comments anymore.

But okay, let's take a deep breath and try to look beyond how people choose to express themselves:

One of the main points behind all this is that while many of us here tend to prefer "classic", "old fashioned" comic book storytelling, Dave seems to be among those who prefer more "modern", "cinematic", "decompressed" comics. Nothing wrong with that! People have different tastes and preferences. Some argue their points a little too aggressively with , but still, it's a question of different tastes.

However, I think it's a relevant question to consider whether "modern" comic book storytelling is really very successful or not. Some may think the work being done is successful artistically, but I think most people would agree that the comic business is not very successful commercially and popularly these days.

czeskleba wrote during the Wonder Woman debate in January:

I guess the broader question is, do you think it is a problem that comic readership has sunk to such a low level? Do you think comic publishers ought to be trying to attract new readers? If so, doesn't it stand to reason that the sort of exclusive, "members only" storytelling which you applaud above might be a factor in why Marvel and DC have such difficulty in attracting new readers?

P.S. As for inkers – I miss them. I also miss imaginative and efficient colourists.

Marvelman

The more I read, the more I think I may be thinking of a completely separate incident. I think it's probably okay that Jim wrote an article about his experience working on Legion with Francis. The comments I think he ought not to have made are here:

You don't bite the hand that feeds you. If you call DC editors "didiots," you won't be working at DC. But, I guess Jim figures he's not going to be working for DC anyways. It's too bad though. A lot of what Jim says about the problems with storytelling in comics today are true.

Marvelman

You are putting words in my mouth. If you have read any of my other posts on this forum, then you know that is simply untrue. Jim says and does many things I agree with, and some that I don't. This is one of the occassions where I think Jim was out of line. Jim had worked with Francis, so I think any criticisms Jim had ought to have been kept behind closed doors.

Marvelman

Anonymous

It wasn't veiled criticism at all – it was straightforward criticism.

Grow up. In life – unless you walk on water – you will be open to criticism

It is this kind of thin-skinned, grown-up-children kind of mentality that keeps comics in the minor leagues. Professional adults won't go running to other publishers when somebody dares gives constructive criticism to them

Marvelman

I would like to add that Jim's comments about Manipaul are really thinly veiled criticism no matter how you try to dress it up. Was Jim wrong to make his grievances public? Yeah, probably. It's certainly not politically wise (or a good way to get future assignments).

Anonymous

Yeah, that's not an insult. It's the opinion of a guy who's been around the block a few times and has some sense of what works and what doesn't. Could he be wrong? Of course. It's just his particular view on Manapaul's work at the time. So what? Manapaul's not a baby. Any artist working in public is going to have to weather criticism a lot harsher than that.

Jim once said, I believe in an interview, "To me, it seems that I say ‘hello’ and people say, ‘What did he mean by that nasty remark?’" (source) I'm beginning to understand what he meant.

Anonymous

Dan:and these are some reasons why the Inkwell Awards exists. Our mission is to promote and educate about e art form of inking and to recognize it's artists. And while inking has always been somewhat misunderstood and its artist almost always flying under the radar, a lot of changes took place over a decade ago and not for the better in regards to inking and inkers and we stepped up to be a positive force, an advocacy for these artists.

Here's a question, then. If Shooter is such an industry legend – why isn't he working for the big two today? Marvel actively have legends working for them. Walt Simonsen is on Avengers, Neal Adams is doing an X-Men book. Hell, DC hired HOWARD MACKIE, one of the worst writers I've ever encountered. Hell, even the mean awful Francis Manapaul is writing, and drawing a book (and hitting his deadlines). Could it be GASP, that people have taken note of the things Shooter has said, about Wonder Woman, Batman, and every other book he rails against because they don't fit is decrepit vision of comics, and said "Nah, he hates us all, all he'll do is cause hassle", and hire someone else?

Your definition of abuse definitely differs from mine. A writer who hasn't moved with the times attacking an artist half his age because he doesn't like his storytelling on a comics website is abuse to me. Why didn't Shooter go to the editor?

ja

Dave, you're conflating things for melodramatic purposes.

The CBR article about Shooter's Legion experience had no abuse in it. He outlined his point of view on how things played out. He even complimented Manapaul's talents. So what if he had problems with the storytelling? Manapaul would leave stuff out of the script, causing storytelling problems which translate to not as good a story as what Shooter wrote (and that was approved by the editor). He has a right to say so, just like Manapaul has a right to complain about Shooter's writing, if he so chooses.

I imagine if you wrote stories that were approved by an editor, and then altered by an illustrator who didn't respect the script you'd turned in (or who made the choice to not work as hard to put in the proper storytelling because he didn't feel like it, or didn't have the chops to do adhere to the script at all), then I would dare say you'd speak out about that yourself.

You keep talking about how Manapaul had been disrespected by Shooter. What about how Manapaul disrespected Shooter by choosing to alter the script at his whim, knowing that the editor wouldn't have the integrity to make him do his job properly? You don't ever consider that, which is why your arguments don't hold water.

Someone earlier in the comments section used the term 'building a straw man'. I believe that's what you're doing here, Dave. You sound completely disingenuous.

Just because other people call Shooter a bad person and you find it fun to jump on that bandwagon, doesn't mean you're making any salient points. By the way, you aren't. You throw accusations and ascribe bad intentions toward Shooter without being able to properly back them up with reason and evidence.

Anonymous

If I remember correctly, Jim never said anyone HAD to adhere to the six-panel format. What he said, I think, was stick to that format until you can tell a story effectively and then move on to a more abstract format. And FOX is no worse than MSNBC, BTW. They just kick the living shit out of them in the ratings.

Anonymous

@ David asked:

"What did Shooter see that Johns and the Flash readership don't?"

Storytelling.

Most current comics artists do not know how to tell a story at all. One example that comes quickly to mind is Dynamite's new Tarzan series. In the first issue, they did a bunch of silent pages. The art on those pages was clumsy, often did not even flow from panel to panel – and all of this stood out even more since the pages were silent

What is Scott's spatial relationship to Professor X? Is he behind him, beside him? When did he get from the door to Professor X? When did they both turn around to leave? This isn't nitpicking -these are basic elements of good storytelling. This page is atrocious – and when a seasoned vet like Shooter says so, people shouldn't cry and whine about it

Storytelling. Shouldn't really be a novel concept to PROS who are getting paid by the big 2 to draw comics

ja

Dave,

So "My god, they dont use a traditional panel grid, and they stray beyond borders, BAD, BAD". is an actual Jim Shooter quote? Of course it isn't. You further lose any credibility with your arguments when you make shit up like that.

Freelance Shooter wrote a script and turned it in. The end result (no matter what fantasy you apply to the process of it) was Manapaul omitting elements from the script, causing storytelling inconsistencies. Shooter didn't apply Evil Intent to this action. He just talked about his experience from his point of view, and how things should have turned out better.

Jim Shooter is a man who is very accomplished. He has a track record of accomplishing record sales and great strides forward for comics creators while trying to maintain a certain standard, all the while being vilified for it. Anything he talks about is based upon this experience, and always will be. So when Jim writes about his experiences, people pay attention because of those accomplishments.

You can think we're all sycophants here if you wish. I for one have been consistent in my defense of Shooter, because of his accomplishments, and because when he writes of his experiences, he backs up his writing with documentation and context.

Funny though how you call all us sycophants, when all you do is keep throwing your own hateful fabricated & unsubstantiated shit at Shooter, as if he's The Big Bad Boogeyman of the comics industry.

Comic books certainly are a collaboration. Just not 100% of those collaborations are done the same way. The vast majority of artists are just handed a script, and not invited to collaborate with the story at all. When the artist is handed a script, he/she should presume that the script has been approved by the editor, and they shouldn't go about leaving things out of the script in the visual storytelling. When Manapaul did just that, he obviously did so with the support of the very editor who approved of Shooter's script in the first place. Not an editor with a lot of integrity, I think.

In all your arguments, you presume falsehoods, and go out of your way to fabricate nonsense you can't back up because you're not paying attention to the details of how things work.

I don't agree with Jim Shooter on a number of things, one of them being the strict adherence of the six-panel grid format for visual storytelling. But that doesn't prevent me from respecting his experience and integrity, just because he has a different point of view than I do.

So Dave O'Neill, I look forward to more of your slip-shod FOX NEWS standard approach to characterizing Jim Shooter as a terrible person who has lost touch with the way comics are done, and with you writing falsehoods about his motivations and recollections.

Anonymous

Here's a story about Dan Slott. I'm not a huge fan of Dan Slott, but I had the opportunity to meet him, and I don't turn that sort of thing down. Anyway, in his, incredibly animated way, told our group a story about working with Marcos Martin on Amazing Spider-Man. Slott had written a sequence where Spider-Man argued on the phone with someone, walking, upsidedown around a clocktower. Martin contacted Slott, and told him that while he understood what Slott was trying to do, visually, it would be difficult to pull off, and would be a series of repeating panels. Martin drew an alternate page as a suggestion, and Slott was so impressed thats what they ended up using.

My point is this. Artists suggesting things to the writer is not the crime Jim Shooter suggests it is. Comics are a collaboration, and for Shooter to look at Manapaul, or Dennis Calero and say "My god, they dont use a traditional panel grid, and they stray beyond borders, BAD, BAD". Thats just wrong. And its kind of sad. And its equally sad people here sycophantically bash their work, and say he's only getting work because he's friends with Geoff Johns, is tragic, and a real insult to Francis Manapaul.

By the way, here's a Marcos Martin page. I wonder how much Shooter hates it, given its not traditionally laid out

ja

Dave O'Neill,

You weren't paying attention to what I said. I referred to Shooter's recounting that Manapaul omitted certain things from Shooter's script, which caused storytelling problems, based upon what Shooter wrote. Based also upon shooter presenting evidence to those examples. I never said that Manapaul's work was bad at all. His drawing is quite terrific.

But as I believe Shooter's account of events (based upon the way he presented them), I believe him (and saw the evidence presented) when he says that Manapaul left out certain parts of the script which caused storytelling inconsistencies to occur. Manapaul can still be a great illustrator while having (intentionally or not) caused storytelling problems.

Saying "[Manapaul] doesn't have to be good at his job to get a job on a "top rated" DC 52 book" is not saying that he's generally bad at his job. That was a general point I was making about how people can either be bad at their jobs, or be someone who can 'interpret' scripts however they choose, thereby causing storytelling problems, and still get work in an environment that favors Who's Yer Buddy over evenly-applied editorial standards. People omit things from scripts all the time, and they feel justified in doing so.

I don't do easy digs at Liefeld. I do true and justified digs at Liefeld, who absolutely chooses to be as bland and as lazy and plaigiarizing as he is, when he can be so much better. The results of which are consistently the same, the same, the same the samethesamethesamTHE SAME low quality crap decade after decade. Even you admit this.

I'm still waiting to count beyond the fingers on both hands, the amount of backgrounds Liefeld has ever drawn. It is the most justified thing to say that Rob Liefeld can't draw the paper bag that he can't draw his way out of, unless Arthur Adams or Jim Lee showed him how to do it in the first place!

"[Hawkman] sucked before Rob [Liefeld], and will suck after." And this is whom you choose to defend? Interesting way to lose all credibility with any criticism of Jim Shooter.

But I must say, you have totally deflated any argument you were trying to make, very effectively. Bravo.

=)

——————-

@Ole M. Olsen: I do have good instincts. All I have to do is wait to see my instincts about someone become justified by their own actions, like what just happened here.

I can categorically say I have NEVER used "I don't like this creator", in anyway, to justify recommending one book over another, to suggest otherwise, not knowing me, is extremely unfair, and extraordinarily rude.

Fact is this, hiding behind a tag of "I don't know them, so they suck", Shooter has criticised comics I like. His essays about Wonder Woman are openly mocked on other messageboards, because people know full well Shooter is mocking stuff he doesn't understand, and isn't taking the time to read properly.

And his abuse of Manapaul was digusting. And the funny thing is, I bet we're going to see the same thing again, as DC have given Tom DeFalco the Superboy book, and he's going to pick away at RB Silva's amazing work, until DC cave in and give DeFalco's boyfriend Ron Frenz the gig.

Anonymous

Anonymous

@Ja, sorry I said anything. @David is a troll after all

@David

I'd love you hear you quote Shooter when making your blind accusations about him. On this blog, when he criticized one Legion artist, he showed samples of the pages in questions, and made clear (and correct) points about the art, and how, many times, it went directly against what he had asked for in the script

On a tangential point, the comics industry is fraught with prima donnas who get mad at any constructive criticism of their work. A true professional would always be wanting to improve, get better at their craft, and would not rest on their laurels.

But back to my first point – give examples and evidence when you bad-mouth Jim, or anybody. Your blanket accusations smack of trolling, or laziness. Maybe you can persuade your comic shop patrons to hate Jim based on your hatred of him, but we're not falling for it

And as for Liefeld – Wow, an easy dig at Rob Liefeld. Can I just say this, as someone who works in a comic store – I have never heard of the creative team on Grifter before he took over it. Or Hawkman, or Deathstroke. They weren't big names. And if you want three dead in the water books to succeed, you might aswell give them to the guy who WANTS them, see what happens, and if it fails, screw it, at least he tried. Like the new DC is going to live or die based on what Rob Liefeld does with Hawkman. The character sucked before Rob, and will suck after.

Ja, I'm simply astonished you don't think Manapaul is, in your words "good at his job". Please click on the link, and tell me, why the image included doesn't fit the high standards of a Jim Shooter fan

ja

Dave O'Neill,

So you're flatly suggesting that these things are Shooter's fault? That no matter what, Jim's the one who making the books he writes nowadays low quality?

When you have Manapaul work on Legion, not putting the things into the artwork that was in the script is Jim's fault? Bill Reinhold's bland (yet technically decent) artwork is Shooter's fault, along with the very lackluster promotion by Dark Horse Comics? That the Solar book drawn by Roger Robinson (not as well as Reinhold, but oddly more energetic than the Magnus book overall) was Shooter's fault for not selling gangbusters?

If that's your premise, then I'll allow it to languish there, gasping for any sense of believability. You seem to be saying that Freelance Shooter has editorial quality control to the same level as when he was in EIC Shooter, therefore any failure of those books is Shooter's fault.

If you've read any of his scripts, you'll see how Jim writes a lot more content into his stories than you generally see from many comics today. I wouldn't doubt that Manapaul did his best with Shooter's script, but might have been overwhelmed with it being more complex than what he would normally draw, storytelling-wise. If memory serves, Shooter stated in an earlier post how Manapaul skipped this or that detail, which caused consistency problems in the storytelling, leaving out crucial items important to the story.

It's a Who's Yer Buddy, Who's Yer Pal World out there. If Manapaul is liked by Editorial for whatever reason, he doesn't have to be good at his job to get a job on a "top rated" DC 52 book. Look at Liefeld, or a number of other people's work on The New 52 as evidence of that.

People are late on deadlines all the time in the comics industry. Shooter recounting his Legion experience, with one of the details being that Manapaul was late on his deadline, is not 'public abuse'.

Anonymous

I'd say that Jim knows a helluva lot of talent in the comics biz, and he also knows which of those truly have talent and which don't meet the high standards he has for those who work in the field that he loves as much as anyone here. He definitely knows more about the industry than 99% (if not an even 100%) of those of us who visit this site, a pretty good chunk of which work in the industry themselves.

———————————-

Consider the case of young Francis Manapaul, an experienced enough artist (dont snigger, Top Cow is still experience) who had the (mis) fortune to be paired with Shooter on the Legion book.

Now, I don't know what happened there, but Shooter saw fit to publicly abuse Manapaul, on a major comic book website about his art style, complain to his editor, and make public that Manapaul had missed a deadline. Manapaul is now working on one of the top rated new 52 books, (and hasn't missed a deadline, nine issues in), to amazing public acclaim (it's the first Flash book I've bought since Mark Waid was booted off it. The first time), and he's one of Johns and Didio's trusted a-level allies. Manapaul and Buccatello are seen as a mark of quality. What happened there? What did Shooter see that Johns and the Flash readership don't?

Dan

BACK TO INKING…

Sadly, this award should be titled: "The Dead Art [in comics] Award."

Inking is dying a slow painful death. It's being replaced by computer effects (darkening, sharpening pencils, etc) and overuse of computer coloring (many comics look like they just have thin outlines).

Inking was a major means of expression, especially in the late 60s into the 90s. It could make or break a book. Many artists' reputation was enhanced this way, such as Byrne and Miller.

Now, it's just a "cost" to be avoided.

And the artform has suffered greatly. Honestly, I don't like looking at comics that don't have quality inking–and that's most of what Marvel and DC are publishing now.

|Dave James O'Neill said…|Correction: Jim doesn (sic) not have a problem with changes made, as long as they're by creators he knows or approves of.

Now that was a bit snippy. I'd say that Jim knows a helluva lot of talent in the comics biz, and he also knows which of those truly have talent and which don't meet the high standards he has for those who work in the field that he loves as much as anyone here. He definitely knows more about the industry than 99% (if not an even 100%) of those of us who visit this site, a pretty good chunk of which work in the industry themselves.He does have his own personal tastes and preferences, but who among us doesn't?

Anonymous

Avengers Earth's Mightiest Heroes did a episode featuring Korvac, and would love to read his thoughts on that.………………..

I've tried to like this series, but I just can't. I like some of the arcs they're using and smaller details like having the "Kirby Crackle" when energy is shown, but having Ms. Marvel beat Captain Mar-Vell so easily, and then for no reason, I guess out of shear girl power, kick Ronan's ass. Yeah, we get it, when a female character is featured they have to be the bad ass, even if it doesn't follow logic; it has to be done to prove we aren't sexist! The problem is that it destroys the story because you know what is going to happen as soon as Ms. Marvel shows up. Guess what, it does not mean you are sexist if the female character does not kick the crap out of another character that is fifty times more powerful. it's laughable.

Chris: the ambassadors are asked permission to lend their respected names to our cause. Being on the front lines, this assists us in the important areas of credibility and exposure. Beyond that, their 'duties' are optional. They can donate to our fundraising. They can promote us through circulating our announcements or writing about us. And most importantly, they can partake in the nominations of our annual Joe Sinnott Hall of Fame recipients. Jim did the latter when asked after accepting our invitation.

As for your final inquiry, it's too soon to say. The fund is awarded to second year students about to enter their third year and we've only has three recipients so far so no one has graduated yet.

I hope I was able to help with your understanding of some aspects of my organization. Thanks for the interest.Best,Bob Almond

Anonymous

I would have to say Terry Austin is my all time favorite inker. It's hard to pick "favorite" tho.

A while back I saw Terry's inking on the Spider-Man strip. The guy is GREAT! I don't see why he doesn't work more. I wonder how these guys that don't work that much anymore make a living. Did they make enough cash back in the day?

Terry Austin just killed it on his X-men run, I mean, that stuff was unbelievable.

Good point about Palmer, a little strong, but you have to remember, that pencilling back then was different, unless I'm wrong, a penciller back in the day did not turn in work that could just about go straight to colour…..

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

@Ja

I think David was just making a joke

@caesar

I really love Palmer too. But I think one big flaw of his is his inks are a little overpowering. Whether he was inking Frenz in Star Wars, Buscema in Avengers, or even Jr Jr on Kick Ass – they all have a distinct "drawn by Palmer" feel to them. He kind of dominates the penciller at times. Much in the way Bob McLeod's inks do the same to his pencillers

That is why I really tip my hat to people like Scott Hanna or even Scott Williams – because they do wonderful inking jobs but they let the penciller shine as well

This is the only reason I think Palmer may not be the best ever even though he is great

Anonymous

Re:

"-He hated the Avengers movie (if he's even seen it), and is writing a long winded diatribe about how one scene in particular didn't meet his storytelling standards the way he wrote the Avengers back in the 70s.

-He's failed a legal bid to stop New Valiant from publishing, because New XO Manowar is pretty good, but doesn't credit Shooter".

@Dave James O'Neill: LOL!!! This comment just about made me choke. Awesome and hilarious.

-He hated the Avengers movie (if he's even seen it), and is writing a long winded diatribe about how one scene in particular didn't meet his storytelling standards the way he wrote the Avengers back in the 70s.

-He's failed a legal bid to stop New Valiant from publishing, because New XO Manowar is pretty good, but doesn't credit Shooter.

At some point, the credibility of a person's comments become suspect when it is either all praise or all criticism. When the comments start looking like saboteurs vs. sycophants I start skimming past them and ignoring them.

Jim's blog posts are pretty straightforward. If you criticize an industry practice or people's qualifications to do their job, it pulls those with polarized attitudes on the topic out of the shadows. That's essentially what we have here.

Those sabotaging have most likely been offended. I'm not a sycophant or claque, so I try to straddle the centerline of objectivity. My comments tend to have more weight with those who lurk and just read what I write without responding.

To ja: no need to pay money. You can see tutorials of artists inking at our Inkwell Awards website Resources section: http://www.inkwellawards.com/?page_id=107You can also find Inker Samples (before & after), articles, the only Inker exclusive Database Directory, and links to Articles, Galleries, Forums, and Interviews.

As for Jim, while I admit, he is an Inkwell Awards ambassador leaving me with a bias, I can only say that for over a year he has been prolific with his blogging, rarely having any delays. This is his first lapse, something I see other bloggers do regularly. It sucks because we're all jonesing for more great reads, but I think fans of his will understand, cut him some slack, and keep coming back. The rest may be here simply for the drama and will probably keep visiting for more of that drama;-)

Much thanks for those of you who have placed a vote! The inkers discussion on that subject has been quite entertaining.

Arthur Nichols

Considering that for a time, Jim Shooter had been regularly posting, giving us great reading material on this blog, and then had to occasionally stop due to paying deadlines, Shooter has built up a very good following. A following I believe will still be here when he returns.

Except for the few self-righteous pricks who wish to characterize Jim as trying to scam everyone here, or to suggest he's purposely being rude by not letting us all know what's going on in his personal life that delays his blog postings (essentially none of our business), I take the silence of the majority of those who haven't hurled accusations and insults at Jim as proof that he has enough equity with everyone here to patiently wait for his return.

That anyone has donated their $10-$20 (or likely no money at all), and feels that gives them the justification to openly be a detrimental petty jerk when they have no reason to be, they really should shut the fuck up.

Shooter has enough equity with me (and I believe the vast majority of everyone else here, whether or not they wish to chime in with their support) to justify my patience.

Anonymous

Actually, it is poor blog etiquette. Putting a quick message in a comments section saying 'I'm working' is not equivalent to a quick post saying the same thing, even if he just had JayJay post it for him. In the nearly month and a half since the last post, he hasn't had 5 minutes to just say 'Hey, I know you're all checking in, but I've been swamped'? That's just rude, especially on a site where you're asking people to donate money to 'keep it alive.' It takes months and months to build a thriving following, but you can lose it in a heartbeat if the people feel ignored, which is exactly what is happening. I used to check it daily. Now…. maybe weekly, if I remember. Why should I bother, if there isn't going to be anything new, anyway?

ja

Tom Palmer is one of the most underrated inkers of all time. He very well should be considered as popular as Scott Williams, but unfortunately not. All the while, he's still doing amazing work being about the best inker Neal Adams ever had, to making John Buscema look even better than his pencils, and then is able to handle such stylized pencils as John Romita Jr.'s! NOT TO MENTION that he was the best inker – along with Klaus Janson, IMO – that Gene Colan EVER had.

Having said that, my personal favorites are what I consider to be 2 sides of the same coin: Klaus Janson and Steve Leialoha. They both can deliver the most bold and powerful inking techniques, and in the same page give us the most delicate, nuanced textures and tones you've ever seen.

Klaus is certainly more visceral, whereas Steve is much more fluid and smooth with his lines and tones. But when you see either of their inks – over others or their own work – man, it can be a thing of beauty!

This is why I enjoy inkers like Tom Palmer, because of their incredible versatility. I enjoy amazing linesmiths such as Scott Williams and most of the other really good inkers out there. But I really appreciate so much more the versatility of an inker that can adapt to everyone's stylization.

This is a good argument for John Byrne never inking himself. I want to still like Byrne's work, but it has become so plastic and homogenized, it looks like wallpaper to me.

That, and Byrne being an overall malicious asshole turns me off to supporting any of his work.

Scott Hanna is a good inker as well. Speaking of Byrne, I love the story I was told from the best source available about how Byrne hated Hanna's inks over him on Spider-Man. He would tell Scott to just ink over what was there in the pencils, and admonish him to not change or add anything. Then Scott walked away from inking The Great (EGO The Living Planet) Byrne's pencils. Good for Scott Hanna! LOL!

I would pay money to see videos of how people ink their work. I just love to see everyone's process.

Anonymous

ja

@David H: Shooter has stated before that his blog output gets halted when he has to work on paying gigs. I would imagine that life itself dictates his output also.

Is Jim's mother still with us? If so, I would imagine that he devotes a great deal of his time with her, too.

There's nothing wrong Jim's 'blog etiquette'. He's let us all know that he gets to his blog posts when he's not being pressed with other things.

———-

I voted:

Favorite Inker: Rick Magyar. He's not just a linesmith. You can see his considerable drawing skills with the inks he does.

Most Adaptable Inker: Jonathan Glapion.

Props Award: Steve Leialoha. Alwaysthe Gold Standard.

The S.P.A.M.I. Todd McFarlane. Of the ones nominated, his inks were the strongest, most distinct. To me, certainly the more interesting.

All-In-One Award: J.H. Williams. Such consistently phenomenal work.

THE JOE SINNOTT AWARD Part 1: Murphy Anderson. He deserves recognition for his lifetime contribution to comics, and all the enjoyment he's given through his work.

THE JOE SINNOTT AWARD Part 2: Tom Palmer. He's much better than Rubinstein and the rest. Even though he's not considered the top hot inker like Scott Williams is, his long-term body of work being able to ink so many different styles so well over so many years has certainly earned my vote.

Jeff Z

Anonymous

@David

Jim has explained his long absences. The same things happened last month, and when he returned he said he had hard deadline stuff he was working on. That's good enough for me – I don't need him to repeat that over and over every time he is away

@Chris – agreed. Rubenstein will always be one of my favorite inkers, because he inked the DeFalco/Frenz run on Amazing Spider-Man that remains my favorite run on that title

David H

I don't have any issue with the lack of updates except for the fact that such a large community has built here, yet there's not even one line explaining the change from near daily posts to such a long break?

It's just not great blog etiquette IMO…. There's a lot of love here Jim but it gets frustrating checking in each day and not seeing any explanation….

About Me

I did my first professional comics work at the age of thirteen, selling a Legion of Super-Heroes story to DC Comics and going on to write Superboy, The Legion of Super-Heroes, Superman and other titles.
In 1978, I accepted the position of Editor in Chief of Marvel Comics under the condition that I would be allowed to improve things for Marvel’s creators. I introduced royalties and a spectrum of other incentives, rights and benefits, attracting a Who’s Who of talent.
Later, I founded VALIANT, DEFIANT and Broadway Comics and was the principal creator of their characters and universes.
Today, I’m the Editor in Chief of Illustrated Media, a custom comics company.